The court determined that bail was not warranted given the serious nature of the charges and strong evidence against the accused.

ORAL ORDER

The petitioner-accused No.1 is before this Court seeking grant of bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. in Crime No.8/2024 of Oorgaum Police Station, pending in S.C.No.118/2024, on the file of the learned III Additional District Session Judge, Kolar, sitting at K.G.F, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 114 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC'), on the basis of the first information lodged by the informant - Geetha.

2. Heard Sri. Udhaya Kumar G, learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt. K.P.Yashodha, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent No.1. Perused the materials on record.

3. In view of the rival contentions urged by the learned counsel for both the parties, the point that would arise for my consideration is:

“Whether the petitioner is entitled for grant of bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C.?”

My answer to the above point is in ‘Negative’ for the following:

R E A S O N S

4. The petitioner being accused No.1 is seeking grant of bail. He was apprehended on 17.02.2024 and since then, he is in judicial custody. The mother of the deceased filed the first information against accused Nos. 1 and 2 making specific allegations. After investigation, the charge sheet came to be filed. According to the prosecution, CW2 is the friend of the deceased and she was accompanied by the deceased at the time of incident and she is the eyewitness. It is also the contention of the prosecution that the bloodstained chopper used in commission of the offence and the bloodstained clothes worn by the accused were recovered at his instance. As per PM report, the deceased had sustained as many as 16 injuries, most of them are incised wounds. As per the medical officer who conducted PM examination, the death was due to injury caused to vital organs. There are strong prima facie materials against the petitioner for having committed the offence. Since the offence is punishable either with death or imprisonment for life and CW2 is the eyewitness to the incident, it is not advisable to release the petitioner on bail. Hence, I am of the opinion that the petitioner is not entitled for grant of bail. 5. Accordingly, I answer the above point in the Negative and proceed to pass the following:

ORDER

The petition is dismissed.