UMESH (32) S/O. LATE MURUGESHA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is the petition filed by the petitioner - accused No.3 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking his release on bail of the offences punishable under Section 364 r/w Section 34 of IPC registered in the respondent - police station Crime No.5/2013 at the first instance and subsequently, the case was registered for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 120B, 143, 144, 147, 148, 341, 302, 201 r/w Section 149 of IPC.

(2.) Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner - Accused No.3 and also learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent - State.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner during the course of his arguments submitted that it is the case of the prosecution that there was a property dispute between accused No.1 and the deceased and because of that reason accused Nos.1 and 2 conspired with accused Nos.3 to 7 to eliminate the deceased. Counsel also made the submission that sofar as the alleged offence under Section 302 of IPC is concerned, there is no material placed by the prosecution that it is the present petitioner who also participated in assaulting the deceased and causing his death. Counsel submitted that the case of the prosecution rests on circumstantial evidence and there are no eye witnesses to the alleged incident. He also made the submission that looking to the prosecution case and the allegations made therein, except the allegation that the present petitioner is the owner of the Scorpio vehicle, all other allegations are one and the same against the present petitioner as well as accused No.5 and they are on the same footing. Counsel made the submission that it is only the general allegation of the prosecution that the present petitioner was also moving in the said Scorpio vehicle along with the other accused persons. Counsel submitted that it is also the prosecution case that the present petitioner was seen when accused No.1 was talking to the inmates of the car for a while and except this, there is no other material placed by the prosecution to show the involvement of the present petitioner in the commission of the alleged offence. Counsel also made the submission that this Court has already considered the bail applications of accused Nos.2, 4, 6, 7, 8 and 5 and all those accused persons are granted bail by the order of this Court in different criminal petitions. Counsel also made the submission that while dealing with the bail petition of accused No.5, this Court has discussed about merits of the case in Para 7 of the bail order and ultimately, said petition was allowed by this Court and accused No.5 has been granted bail. Counsel submitted that looking to the allegations made in the complaint, as well as the other materials collected during investigation, and they are one and the same as of accused No.5, as well as the on the ground of parity, the present petitioner is also entitled to be granted with bail. Learned counsel submitted that now the investigation is completed and charge sheet has been filed and the present petitioner is ready to obey any conditions to be passed by this court. Hence, he submitted to allow the petition.