IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA CIRCUIT BENCH AT DRARWAD DATED THIS THE 3 R1) DAY OF JANUARY 2011 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY CRIMINAL PETITiON No.8235/2010 BETWEEN: Karibasaya @ Karibasappa, Sb late Onkarappa, Age 20 years, 0cc: Agriculture, Rio Dassara naganahalli, Tq & Dist: Bellary. ... Petitioner (By Shri Sadiq N. Goodwala, Advocate) AND: The State of Karnataka, Through Moka Police Station, By its Public Prosecutor, Circuit bench, Dharwad. ... Respondent (By Shri Vinayak S. Kulkarni, Advocate) This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, praying to grant bail in Crime No.89/2009 of Moka Police Station, District: Bellary, and etc. This petition coming on for orders this day, the Court made the following: ORDER Heard the Counsel for the petitioner. 2. The brief facts are as follows: The petitioner has been arraigned as accused for the offences punishable under sections 302, 201, 120-B read with section 34 of Indian Penal Code. The complaint lodged by one Mastanamma, wife of late Onkarappa, on 16.11.2009 was to the effect that the Complainant had married Onkarappa as his second wife during the life time of his legally wedded wife about 15 years prior to the complaint. Onkarappa had two children by his legally wedded wife, by name Karibasayya, who is the petitioner, and one Rangamma. The Complainant has a son by name Ujjinnappa. The Complainant is residing 3 . separately and does coolie work for her livelihood. On 15.11.2009, the Complainant and her son as usual attended to coolie work and returned home at 6 p.m. and thereafter, Ujjinnappa had gone to a provision store to fetch provisions, but did not return. On 16.11.2009 the Complainant was informed by one Rudramma that a dead body was lying nearby Hagari bridge. The complainant and her relatives went there and found the dead body of Ujjinnappa with injuries on his face, chest, and all over his body. 3. It is stated that the petitioner is the step-brother of the deceased Ujjinnappa. On the basis of the said complaint, investigation was taken up by the competent authorities and a charge sheet has been filed before the competent Court. The petitioner is accused no.1 in terms ofthe said proceedings. The petitioner had earlier approached this Court in Crl.P.No.7483/2010 along with accused No.4. This Court had allowed the petition ofaccused No.4 and rejected the petition of S 4 the present petitioner. It is thereafter that the present petition is filed, on the Sessions Court having rejected yet another bail application, on the footing that there is no changed circumstance which would warrant grant of bail to the petitioner and in that background the learned Counsel for the petitioner would now contend, that the other petitioners having been granted bail, this Court on the earlier occasion had only held, as on the date of the earlier petition there was no case made for grant of bail. However, having regard to the circumstance that the investigation is now complete and that the petitioner has been in custody for ten months and there is no likelihood of the petitioner absconding or not being available for trial, it would be just and proper to enlarge the petitioner on bail as well, which benefit had been conferred on the other accused and he would further point out that admittedly, the petitioner had accompanied the complainant on the date when she lodged complaint, which would indicate that he was innocent of any such act complained of or accusation made. 5 4. Having regard to the fact that there are no changed circumstances, as rightly pointed out by the Sessions Court, and having regard to the gravity of the offence and the apparent circumstances from the charge sheet and other investigation that is gone on, it is not a fit case where bail can be granted in favour of the petitioner. 5. Therefore, the petition is rejected. Sd! JUDGE Sub!