ORDER
The petitioner is
Crime No.230/2008 eefi°e:§ceM”e..
plmishable under Section Q9 2 ‘
2. It is the case. {m13%.3.20oa
at about 8.00 pm. caused
death of 2: deadhody to
destroy th 9 ,
for petitioner and
1earnedVv”‘AV(!i(iI.V e and I have been taken
. _ ” would submit there is no
1pi9imsi ‘fa£:ie Ve2iee:~’agairxst petitioner. The petitioner was
2 V€1;y”««Int1\f:ii’£ efirailable after the occurrence and was not
The statementgtgiven by witnesses de not
._«esfabiisl1 prime faeie case against petitioner. In the
h).
circumstances, there is no piima facie case against
petitioner, therefore, petitioner is entitled to ‘TV
5. The {earned Add}. SPP would M
statement of witnesses CW 3 and’ C’W¢_4
deceased and petitioner were cafryiiig on .b:1si13sr3ss:.”e.f’
jeily stones. The deceased seen {he
Company of petitioner. was the
accused was questioned’-‘ vAA.’jEg?LI_1§3I’6€[b0utS of
deceased. The”a(:e_{1se(i__appeaV. red’ ‘jeetsmsgnmmea and did
not @5veAa11s$vej;s,Q Tlaezfe–was— between petitioner
and to jelly stone business. The
petitioI1VerVV§i’idV ‘£u.iy.sa1fisfacto1y reply as to what
happened ‘ V’? was last seen afive in his
AV deceased Gopalakrrishna was
initiating certain so and 5;’? cases
agsjimst and Narasimhaiah.
.. ‘T s_ 6… this stage, it is not necessary for this court to
Critical analysis of statements of n
View of incriminating circumstances appearing against
petiticsner and also considering the fact, peti1i§}11é:r’A,
motive to commit murder af deceased and M
conduct of petitioner, pei:itior;e1{c£3;i’1i3l<)t;_ he '-=d}:1v g
bail.
Accordingly, petition is S / ‘V
sai-
Iudgfé