MAHESH Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard.

(2.) According to the prosecution the deceased was missing since 2-6-2000 and for the first two days no report was lodged relating to the missing person nor anybody stated anything against or raised any suspicion against the present applicants. On 4-6-2000, the dead body of Kranta was recovered. The body was putrefied and had some marks of the injuries. On 4-6-2000, sister of deceased Kranta was examined by the investigating officer, who in her statement submitted that her brother Kranta had gone to purchase some tablets for her father and at that time she had seen the present applicants near a shop. Beyond that she did not say anything. After some time, the Investigating Officer examined the sister of the applicant No-1 who stated that Kranta was eve-teasing and on earlier occasion she made a complaint to her brother Mahesh. Thereafter, on 12-6-2000, a knife from Mahesh and clothes of Megnath and Surendra were recovered. Beyond this, there is no other connecting evidence.

(3.) Taking into consideration the nature of the allegations and the character of evidence so far collected by the prosecution in support of its allegations, I consider present to be a fit case for admitting the appellants to bail.