RAVI Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Notice issued to the complainant has been served.

(2.) The case of the prosecution is that on 17.12.2017, CW.1 is said to have gone to his land in Sy.No.46/3 of Cholanahalli and found bloodstains on the walls of the well and also found a dead body inside the well. It is stated that CW.1 had observed bloodstains on the new bye-pass road adjoining his land and inferred that the dead body was dragged from the road and thrown into the well. A complaint came to be lodged, investigation has been conducted and charge sheet has been filed.

(3.) It is noticed that the counsel for petitioner contends that the role assigned in commission of offences as regards the petitioner is similar to that of other accused including accused nos.5 and 6. It is stated that accused no.5 has been enlarged on bail as per the order of this court in Crl.P No.4143/2018 dated 18.01.2019, whereas, accused no.6 has been enlarged on bail by the order passed by the trial court. It is contended that from perusal of charge sheet and the case of the prosecution, what has been imputed to the petitioner, accused nos.5 and 6 stand on the same footing. Accordingly, the counsel for petitioner contends that on the ground of parity, the petitioner is entitled to be enlarged on bail.