Bail may be denied in heinous crimes, even when based on circumstantial evidence, if a prime witness is yet to be examined and there is a risk of tampering with the prosecution's evidence.

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.439 (FILED U/S.483 BNSS) CR.P.C BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS HONOURABLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO RELEASED HIM ON BAIL WHO IS ACCUSED NO.1 IN CRIME NO.260/2022 (S.C.NO.23/2023) ON THE FILE OF THE RESPONDENT MADDUR POLICE STATION, NOW PENDING ON I ADDL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS AT MANDYA FOR THE OFFENCE P/US/ 201,302 OF IPC.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR

ORAL ORDER

This petition is filed by petitioner/accused No.1 for grant of regular bail under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure. It is the case of the petitioner/accused No.1 that the complaint was lodged by the brother of the deceased before Kudur Police Station registered in Crime No. 393/2022. The same was transferred to Maddur Police Station for want of jurisdiction, and a complaint was registered in Crime No. 260/2022. Investigation was completed, and the charge sheet has been laid against the petitioner and three other accused persons.

2. It is the case of the prosecution that petitioner/accused No.1 had borrowed money from deceased Lokesh on 29.08.2022 at about 04.30 to 05.00 a.m. The deceased, in a drunken state, scolded the petitioner/accused No.1 to return back the amount. In this connection a motive was developed; petitioner/accused No.1 with the help of other accused (three in number), committed the murder of the deceased and threw the dead body on the railway track near Karadiguchamma Temple, Solur.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner/accused No.1 contends that he filed an application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. in S.C.No.23/2023 before the learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mandya, for grant of regular bail, which came to be dismissed on 05.02.2024. Being unsuccessful in securing regular bail, he is before this Court seeking grant of bail.

4. It is the vehement contention of learned counsel for the petitioner/accused No.1 that the petitioner is innocent and has not committed any offence and the prosecution has based its theory on circumstantial evidence, and there is no eye witness to the incident. It is further contended that a false and concocted story is put up against the petitioner implicating him in this heinous offence in which he is not involved. He further contends that there is a delay in the trial. The petitioner has been in judicial custody since 11.10.2022. The prosecution has not even examined a single witness. During the course of arguments, he submits that CW1 to CW12 have been examined. It is also contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that there is no specific overt act against the petitioner/accused No.1. A charge sheet has been filed. There is no incriminating material as against the petitioner/accused No.1 and no materials are recovered as against the petitioner/accused No.1 to implicate him for the offence.

5. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner/accused No.1 that the petitioner is the sole earning member, having deep roots in the society and having a respectable name in the society. There is no chance of him absconding from the jurisdiction of the place. He would participate in the trial and adhere to the terms and conditions imposed by this Court if bail is granted. He also submits that there are no criminal antecedents other than the present case on hand. Hence, he may be granted bail and be released on bail for the offences stated herein.

6. Per contra, Learned HCGP appearing for the respondent- State vehemently contends that the petitioner/accused No.1