IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE. oxren 11-us THE 3*" DAY 0? ocroaea, zoofig S 'f * '_' j,:.. BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE Asnesca. A cm. PETITION No.3s11%%OF520oa . 7 aawsen ' A% 1 X ESHWARACHAR s/0 BHASKARACHAR AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, _ R,/O LAKSHMIPURA nousmeao RD, : ARASIKERE TOWN, - x HASSAN oxsmcr. ~ I %%%% PETITIONER (av sax '1xi;:MAR§v9 %%3%ACHAPPA, ADVOCATfiS) AND Tm; STATE .5g)i= KARNA;TA~.'s;A _ _ 31' s?AT1oN'Hz3us5, MASTER} c+iA.unA:zAvApA1r¢A's:zunAL pouce snmon, nassm % « RESPONDENT
‘ (av sax HONNAPPA. HCGP)
“THIS CRLQP IS FILED U/5.439 CR.P.C BY T}’iE ADVOCATE FOR
_ C ‘THE.fPETIT!ONER PRAYING THAT THIS HOWBLE COURT MAY BE
“PLEAS!’:’D«._TO ENLARGE THE PETR. ON 5AIL IN CR.fi0.48/08 OF
‘*~CHA’HN}’5RAYAPATNA RURAL POLICE STATION. HASSAN DIST… WHICH
“IS’=R£G{_}5. FOR THE OFFENES P/’U/8.302, 201 OF If-‘C.
THIS PETITION comma on FOR onosns mrs DAY, THE
‘COURT MAi)E THE FOLLOWING:
2.3.91.3
The respondent registered Crime 130.48 of 21_C§fi6«’ _
three accused persons inciuding the petitioner –.
punishable under Sections 302 and the»
Code.
(accused No.3) wife of the d,eceasg¢.,./had’ “ii1iclt.1reietio.n:ship and
financial dealings with Esweirachar,fecctise£i.«V:.Ro.1. She paid
super! to end cot Bhuvaneshwar
murdered onz’2V6″‘-‘.* The Sessions Court, by its
order, dated 15′ 26368 dismissed the petitioner’s
a.ou’iicatIen:fo.rr tails,’ H A “”” ” ‘V
».’3_.”S.rI K_uern..%Kumar, the learned counsei appearing for the
petitIorier*–suhrn’ite It is improbable that the deceased would
vV°.takeV dfintt Eswarachar (accused No.1) knowing fully well
.1.thet.jth’ere_tsiiillicit relationship between the said accused No.1
it”IV-4’jfencif:the”‘deceesed’s wife, Sunderamma. He submits that the
,_.__4,,e_i,Apetitioner is falsely implicated in the case. It is his further
ii”edsutimission that now that the invatioation is over and the
flea.
2. The case of the prosecutioi1.v:§’i~i~.brlef”is__theti:’3u’ndararnma ” V L’
3
charge sheet is filed, there is no impediment In considering the
petitioner’s request for the grant of ball.
4. Per contra, Sri Honnappa, the learned High Qourt
Government Pieader submits that one Sadusaab (CW5)j,”wsI§iii_ose
statement is recorded, states that he has seen the
going with the other two persons. i-le_.hasalso”reeri»4’out_’_:the_V RV’
statement of Karthik (CW1) a son bornin the
the deceased and the accused No.3… steted * V L’
that his father used to come home _e*tze_ryday.– version
is used by éri I-iontnetpgjoijtoltvioontend that the possibility of the
deceased being “under of liquor cannot be ruied out
when he tfiiifisv a~oproached____by: the accused No.1 and 2 for further
co’esurnVption i%iqi:ior_._
fihe’ ~voi.u’ntfary~~ statements of the accused are recorded.
:’v._TBVased on’~-..thei1r’st;eteinents, the investigating officer has seized
‘ ” ironhammer, size stones from the scene of the crime.
stage, I have no hesitation in holding that there are
er’iirie,._f:3cie materials against the accused, as the accused are
not only the ailaationfioigmurdedno Bhuvaneshwar but
atso causing disappearance of the evidence of what th.e§(‘-.:he.ye
done. Just because the Investigation Is over
sheet is filed, the petitioner is not entitledmto be ” ‘V
Considering the serious and heinous niature-of offené[es,._.«t’h:eé
circumstanclal evidence, the recovefy oh?-._nmteré§l’s..ej from} the
scene of the crime, the statements of rehflves of
the deceased. more Danlcieffifly 7.iof;_ __KarthIk and his
brothers, I hold that the pefltioner. to the grant of
6. The:’:pet.§tieh”for-§a#!»’Is.’tSis;r:lssed.
3d/i
Judge
me e ~