This petition is filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., seeking

regular bail of the petitioner/accused No.1 in S.C.No.5006/2022

(Crime No.140/2021 of Hanur Police Station, Chamarajanagara

District for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201

of IPC and Sections 66, 66(c) of the Information Technology Act,

2000), pending on the file of Additional District and Sessions

Court, Kollegala, Chamarajanagara District.

2.

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the

petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader

appearing for the respondent/ State.

3.

The factual matrix of the case of the prosecution is

that 15 years ago, the deceased took the land bearing

Sy.No.341 from C.W.32 for lease and he was staying in the said

property. The petitioner having acquaintance with this deceased,

he used to do flowing work of the deceased and he used to visit

the property of the deceased in order to see C.W.3. That on

3

29.03.2021, he had been to see C.W.3 in order to collect the

balance amount of Rs.7,000/- and again he had visited the

house of the deceased at 6:45 p.m, by that time, C.W.2 called

and informed the deceased that he had come in the afternoon at

3 p.m, also. Hence, the deceased suspected that he may be

coming to see C.W.3 and quarrel was taken place between the

petitioner and also the deceased. When the deceased spoke

about the character of mother of the petitioner, he enraged and

took up the club, which was there in the Car shed and inflicted

the injury. Thereafter, in order to screen the evidence he took

the club, debit card and also the mobile belongs to C.W.3 and

destroyed the same and also taking the password of the gmail of

the deceased made an attempt to misappropriate the money and

throw the same in the channel and also destroyed the stained

clothes by setting the fire.

4.

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner

would submit that the case rests upon the circumstantial

evidence and no eye witnesses to the incident. The prosecution

relies upon the statement of C.W.2, who had seen the petitioner

4

at 390 clock when he had come to the house of the deceased and

when the deceased was sleeping, he returned and C.W.2

informed the same to the deceased and the deceased also

enquired about whether he has visiting to see C.W.3 and C.W.3

is pursuing her education at Madurai and question of visiting to

see C.W.3 does not arise.

5.

The learned counsel for the petitioner also would

submit that only two circumstances relied upon by the

prosecution. One is recovery of the club and the other one is the

statement of C.W.2-Mangamma. Except that no material is

collected. The learned counsel also would submit that a case is

registered against the unknown person at the first instance and

the incident was taken place on 23.09.2021. The alleged

recovery of club was after one month i.e., 23.10.2021 on the

date of arrest. Hence, the petitioner has not made out a prima

facie case to enlarge him on bail and there are no sound

circumstances against the petitioner herein.

5

6.

Per contra, the learned High Court Government

Pleader appearing for the State would submit that C.W.2 had

seen this petitioner, who had come to the house of the deceased

at 39o clock and also C.W.2 revealed that he had come to the

deceased house at 39o clock and conversant with the deceased.

Apart from that the club was recovered at the instance of the

petitioner, the same is also stained with blood and the report is

also positive that the club which was recovered at the instance of

this petitioner was stained with blood. The case of the

prosecution is that the petitioner is interested in C.W.3, who is

pursuing her education, who is the daughter of the deceased. In

this regard, there was an enmity and also the petitioner inflicted

the injury when the deceased made comment on the character

of petitioner9s mother. Hence, there is a prima facie material

against the petitioner herein.

7.

Having heard the respective counsel and on perusal

of