This criminal petition is filed by the petitioner/accused

No.1under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

(hereinafter referred to as 8Cr.P.C.9, for short) for granting

bail in Crime No.189/2021 registered by Gajendragad Police

for the offence punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal

Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as the 8IPC9, for short).

2.

Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for

petitioner/accused No.1 and learned High Court Government

Pleader for respondent-State.

3.

The case of the prosecution is that one Saroja

Tirani Basapa Hallad wife of deceased has filed complaint with

Gajendragada

Police

on

09.11.2021,

alleging

that

on

08.11.2021 at about 8 p.m., accused-Sharanappa came to

her house and took her husband stating that he wants to talk

with deceased. Thereafter, at 2.30 a.m. she came to know

that

accused

committed

murder

of

her

husband.

Immediately, she went to police station and lodged complaint.

She also suspected that family of accused persons have

3

committed the murder. After registering the case, police

have arrested the petitioner on 10.11.2021. He was

remanded to judicial custody. After investigation, police filed

charge sheet against this petitioner. Petitioner filed bail

petition before Sessions Judge and the same came to

rejected. Hence, petitioner is before this Court seeking

regular bail.

4.

Learned

counsel

for

the

petitioner/accused

contended that petitioner is innocent of the alleged offence.

There is no eye witness to the incident i.e. who seen the

commission of murder. Except circumstantial evidence,

suspecting that family members of the accused might have

committed murder, there is no other eye witnesses. Police

dropped the names of other accused persons in the charge

sheet and charge sheet is only against this petitioner.

Petitioner is in judicial custody for more than 11 months.

Petitioner is the only earning member of the family. He

further submits that, investigation is completed and charge

sheet has been filed, petitioner is not required for any

4

custodial interrogation and is ready to abide by the conditions

imposed by this Court. With this prays to allow the petition.

5.

Per contra, learned HCGP seriously objected the

bail petition and contended that there is a circumstantial

witness who seen the decease with the company of the

accused. CW.10 Sharada stated that accused and deceased

came together and took gutaka. CW.12-Manager of bar also

stated that deceased came to wine shop along with accused

and they took alcohol.CW.1 wife of the deceased stated that

accuse came to her house and took her husband and brother

of the deceased also seen accused was committing the

murder. The 164 Cr.P.C. statement of wife of deceased also

reveals the same. Therefore, there is a prima facie material

for committing murder of the deceased. Hence, prays to

reject the bail petition.

6.

Having heard the arguments of the learned

counsel for the parties, perused the records.

7.

On perusal of the records, admittedly, death of

husband of the complainant homicidal death because of

5

complexion of neck. Admittedly, accused came to the house

of complainant at 8.00 p.m. on 08.11.2021 and took the

deceased along with him. Subsequently, both of them went a

bar and drunk alcohol and the same is seen by CW.12.

Thereafter, they took gutaka from CW.10. Brother of the

deceased after coming to know that these persons are gone

out, immediately, he has followed them and seen that both of

them are going on motorbike towards land, where the

accused committed murder by squeezing his neck and

committed murder and went away. The evidence placed on

record is circumstantial evidence. Brother of the deceased is

the last person who seen both together going towards land

and is an eye witness to the incident. The statement of

counsel for petitioner that there is no motive for the petitioner

to commit murder of deceased is not believable. On the other

hand motive is stated by the complainant that land of