Murder accused seeks bail as he was wearing mask and was unidentifiable

NT Correspondent

Bengaluru: A murder accused who is in custody as an under trial since September 2020 sought bail claiming that the complainant has stated that the assailants were wearing masks.

Since the accused therefore cannot be identified, he should be released on bail. The High Court of Karnataka which heard his petition however dismissed this contention stating that this would amount to prejudicing the trial.

“The contention that he has admitted the accused were wearing masks at the time of incident and therefore he could not have identified them etc., cannot be appreciated at this stage. This Court cannot prejudge the case, especially when the trial is in progress. Any observations made in this regard would prejudice the case of the prosecution or the defence. It is for the trial Court to appreciate the evidence on record and come to a conclusion with regard to the offence committed by an accused,” Justice Mohammad Nawaz said dismissing the petition.

The accused Deekshith Shetty aka Devi Prasad Shetty approached the HC with the bail plea. He is the accused number six in the case pending before the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Udupi.

One Divyaraj Shetty had filed the complaint alleging that at 2.15 pm on September 24, 2020 the murder of one Kishan Hegde took place near the entrance of the Veerabhadra Temple in Bommerbettu village.

Nine persons were arrested and accused in the murder. A property dispute is said to have been the cause of the murder. Shetty’s advocate argued that the evidence showed that witnesses could not have identified any of the accused, since according to the witnesses the accused were wearing masks.

He argued that there was no legal evidence which incriminates Shetty with the alleged crime then he cannot be detained in custody till conclusion of the trial.

He also contended that accused Nos.7 to 9 are already enlarged on bail and therefore, the petitioner who is languishing in judicial custody for nearly two years is also entitled for bail.

The HC however said that the eye witnesses were not the only evidence the prosecution was relying on.

“The material on record clearly reveals that the complainant was present along with the deceased when the incident took place. The prosecution is also relying on other evidence such as recovery of weapons etc. As per post mortem report, the deceased has sustained 25 injuries, which indicates the manner in which the offence is committed, in broad daylight,” the HC said.

Noting that there were specific allegations against this accused, the HC dismissed the petition and said, “There are specific overtacts against him that he has assaulted the deceased with a Talwar, a deadly weapon. Hence, grant of bail to accused Nos.7 to 9 will not ensure the benefit of the petitioner. Considering the nature and gravity of the offence and the manner in which it is committed and the punishment prescribed, the incarceration now undergone by the petitioner is not a ground to enlarge him on bail.”

CrlP 979/2023