—1— IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 28Th DAY OF MARCH, 2011 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE V. JAGAN NATHAN CRL.P.NO. 10305/2011 Between: Parashram Bharma Pakhare, Age 24 years, 0cc.: Agriculture, R/O. Muchandi, Tq. & Dist.: Belgaum. Petitioner (By Sri. S. B. Deyannavar, Advocate) And: The State of Karnataka, Through Marihal P.S. R/by SPP Circuit Bench, Dharwad. Respondent (By Sri.Vinayak Kulkarni, HCGP) This criminal petition is filed u/S. 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking that the petitioner/accused No.3 be released on bail in Marihal Police in Crime No.37/20 10 for the offences p/u/s. 143, 147, 148, 302, 109, 427 r/w. 149 of IPC. This petition coming on for orders this day, the Court made the following: ORDER Heard the petitioner’s counsel and also the learned High Court Government Pleader for the Respondent State in respect of the bail application filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. by the petitioner. 2. The petitioner is one of the accused persons against whom the case is registered by Marihal Police in Crime No.37/2010 in respect of the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 302, 109, 427 read with Section 149 of the IPC. 3. The prosecution case in short is that, the complainant went to his land on 12.02.2010 at about 6.30 a.m. and noticed a damaged auto-rickshaw parked in the adjoining land. Out of curiosity, he went near the auto rickshaw and noticed a dead body of an unidentified person which was lying near the maize crop of his land and mobile phone was also found near the dead body. Seeing all these, he filed a complaint. After investigation, the police have arrested ten accused persons and this petitioner is one of them. -3- 4. Petitioner’s counsel submits that the other accused persons are on bail and, therefore, this petitioner also be granted the similar relief. 5. On the other hand, the learned High Court Government Pleader submits that there are eyewitnesses to the incident and CW-8 and CW-9 are the two eyewitnesses, who have spoken about this petitioner having assaulted the deceased with iron rod on the head and due to head injury the death was occurred. 6. Having thus heard both sides and taking note of the overt act alleged against this petitioner, grant of bail therefore is not warranted, as the offences punishable also include Section 302 of the IPC. The trial Court, therefore, can be directed to expedite the trial. 7. In the result, the petition is rejected. However, the trial court is directed to see that the trial takes place at the earliest. Sd! JUDGE Vn.p