These petitions are filed under Section 439 and 438 of Cr.P.C. respectively for enlarging the petitioners on regular bail as well as anticipatory bail in Chincholi police station Crime No.153/2023, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 143 , 201 and 302 read with Section 149 of IPC.

NC: 2024:KHC-K:345 CRL.P No. 201787 of 2023 C/W CRL.P No. 201796 of 2023

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent - State. Perused the records.

3. The main contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is that the complaint is only on the basis of the surmises and assumptions. It would contend that no material evidence is placed and only a suspicious complaint came to be lodged and the petitioners have been arrested. It is contended that there is no prima facie material placed to show that the petitioners were involved in the alleged offences. Further, the learned counsel would submit that the petitioners are ready to abide by the conditions to be imposed by this Court. As such, he would seek for admitting the petitioners on regular bail as well as anticipatory bail.

4. Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader seriously opposed the bail petitions asserting that there are eyewitnesses to the alleged incident. The witnesses namely, Shrikant and Neelakanth have given -5- NC: 2024:KHC-K:345 CRL.P No. 201787 of 2023 C/W CRL.P No. 201796 of 2023 their statement before the learned Magistrate under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. The witness Neelakanth is an eyewitness to the alleged incident, who has seen the petitioners committing the alleged offences along with accused No.1 and the petitioner namely, Parashuram, who has moved anticipatory bail petition before this Court, has assisted in shifting the dead body in the tractor and statement of Shrikant establish this aspect. Hence, he would submit that there is prima facie material against the petitioners and when there are eyewitnesses to prove the involvement of the petitioners in the alleged offences, they are not entitled for either regular bail or anticipatory bail. Hence, he would seek for rejection of the bail petitions.

5. As per the case of the prosecution, the deceased is the mother of the complainant and accused No.1 has availed loan of Rs.5,00,000/- from the deceased. It is alleged that on 10.11.2023, accused No.1 called the complainant, asking him to send his mother so that he can repay the loan amount of Rs.5,00,000/- and accordingly, -6- NC: 2024:KHC-K:345 CRL.P No. 201787 of 2023 C/W CRL.P No. 201796 of 2023 his mother went to the house of accused No.1. Later on, the complainant and his wife went to the work and when they returned in the evening, they did not find their mother and they were under the impression that she had gone to Bidar. But, later on, it is revealed that she was murdered by strangulation as a result of assaulting on her head. As a result, the complainant has lodged a complaint against the petitioners herein and on the basis of the complaint crime came to be registered in Crime No.153/2023 for the aforesaid offences.

6. Though the complaint is filed on the basis of the suspicion, but, the allegations of the complaint clearly disclose that the accused persons have summoned the deceased to the house of accused No.1. The learned High Court Government Pleader has invited the attention of the Court to the statement given by the witness namely, Neelakanth before the learned Magistrate under Section 164 of Cr.P.C., wherein, he has specifically stated that he has seen the deceased in front of the house of accused -7- NC: 2024:KHC-K:345 CRL.P No. 201787 of 2023 C/W CRL.P No. 201796 of 2023 No.1 by talking with him. Later on, while he was returning, he heard cry from the house of accused No.1 and when he went inside the house, he found that accused No.1 and present petitioners had strangulated the deceased by sari and caused her death. It is also alleged that he was chased by the petitioners, but, he escaped from their clutches.

7. The statement of the witness namely, Shrikant under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. discloses that the petitioner - Parashuram has assisted other petitioners in disposing the dead body in a tractor and hence, at this juncture, it is evident that there is a prima facie case against the present petitioners. The offence is under Section 302 of IPC and the petitioner - Parashuram is all along absconding. His presence is required for interrogation. The offence under Section 302 of IPC is punishable with death or life imprisonment. Considering the nature of gravity of offences and stage of the investigation, the relief claimed by the petitioners cannot be granted by exercising the -8- NC: 2024:KHC-K:345 CRL.P No. 201787 of 2023 C/W CRL.P No. 201796 of 2023 discretion of this Court. Hence, the petitions are devoid of any merits and do not survive for consideration. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following: