Kumar S vs State By Basaveshwaranagara P.S
2022 Latest Caselaw 11638 Kant

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

     DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2022

                            BEFORE

 THE HON'BLE Dr. JUSTICE H.B.PRABHAKARA SASTRY

          CRIMINAL PETITION No.2318 OF 2022

BETWEEN:

Kumar S.
S/o Srinvas
Aged about 28 years
Res. #32,
Doddabidra kallu
Nagasandra Post
Bangalore 560073                                     ... Petitioner

 ( By Sri Balagangadhara D., Advocate)

AND:

State by Basaveshwaranagar P.S
Police Station
Represented by State Public Prosecutor
High Court-
Complex,
Bangalore-560001                                  ... Respondent

 ( By Sri Nageshwarappa, HCGP)

       This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 439 of Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973, praying to pass an order, enlarging the
petitioner/accused No.5 on bail in SC No.1112/2017 (Crime
No.72/2017) registered by the Basaveshwaranagara police station,
pending on the CCH 60 at Bangalore for the offence punishable
                                             Crl.P.No.2318/2022
                              2




under section 143, 147, 148, 114, 212, 427, 326, 120(b), 302,
307 r/w 149 of IPC to meet the ends of justice.

     This Criminal Petition coming on for Orders, through Video
Conferencing Hearing at High Court of Karnataka, Kalaburagi
Bench, this day, the Court made the following:

                           ORDER

The petitioner has filed this petition under Section 439

of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking his

enlargement on bail in S.C.No.1112/2017 (arising out of

Crime No.72/2017) of the respondent - Police Station for the

offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 114, 212,

427, 326, 307, 302 and 120 (B) read with Section 149 of the

Indian Penal Code, 1860.

2. It is the contention of the petitioner as well the

argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the

petitioner is innocent of the alleged offences and that he has

been falsely implicated in the matter. Learned counsel for

the petitioner who is appearing through video conferencing

further submits that the prosecution has examined CW-1 to

CW-12, which includes material witnesses and eyewitnesses Crl.P.No.2318/2022

also. But none of them have supported the case of the

prosecution. He further submits that the petitioner is

languishing in jail for more than five years, as such, in the

said changed circumstance, the petitioner/accused deserves

his enlargement on bail.

3. The respondent has not filed its statement of

objection to the petition. However, the learned High Court

Government Pleader who is appearing through video

conferencing submits his oral objection and contends that

there is no change in the circumstances. He submits that

mother and grand mother of the deceased have strongly

supported the case of the prosecution. Many other material

witnesses including few eyewitnesses, doctor, mahazar

witnesses are yet to be examined by the prosecution. He

also submits that the petitioner is involved in other criminal

offences also. The weapon is recovered at the instance of the

petitioner. As such, when there are strong reasons to Crl.P.No.2318/2022

continue him in the judicial custody, his successive bail

petition cannot be entertained.

4. Admittedly, this is the sixth successive bail

petition of the petitioner. After rejection of his previous bail

petition, he filed one more similar petition in Criminal Petition

No.5722/2018, which came to be rejected on 06.12.2018 by

this Court as devoid of merit. Subsequently, he filed Criminal

Petition No.3831/2019 which came to be disposed of as not

pressed on 02.08.2019. Thereafter he filed one more similar

petition in Criminal Petition No.6852/2021, which also came

to be disposed of as not pressed on 26.11.2021. Thus, at

frequent intervals of time the present petitioner has been

filing the repetitive similar petitions which have been either

stood rejected as devoid of merit or disposed of as not

pressed.

5. At present, the contention of the petitioner in the

form of argument of learned counsel for the petitioner is that Crl.P.No.2318/2022

several of the charge sheet witnesses examined have not

supported the case of the prosecution. Though the learned

counsel for the petitioner submits that CW-1 to CW-12 have

not supported the case of prosecution, however, the learned

HCGP, without accepting the same, submits that the mother

and grand mother of the deceased have strongly supported

the case of prosecution, furthermore according to the learned

HCGP there are many more witnesses yet to be examined by

the prosecution including several of the material witnesses,

eyewitnesses, doctor, mahazar witnesses and the

Investigating Officers. Thus, it appears that there are still

more witnesses to be examined by the prosecution.

Even for a moment assuming that some of the witnesses

examined by the prosecution have not supported the case of

prosecution, still by appreciating and analysing their evidence,

prematurely this Court cannot arrive at a conclusion that the

petitioner is innocent of the alleged offences, as such,

deserves to be enlarged on bail. This Court, at this stage, Crl.P.No.2318/2022

cannot write a pre-judgment before conclusion of the trial by

making any observation that there is no support to the case

of prosecution in the examination of the witnesses.

Moreover, when there are still more witnesses yet to be

examined including eyewitnesses and the prosecution is also

conducting the case contending that the recovery of the

weapon which is called as 'long' was recovered at the

instance of the petitioner, I am of the view that there are no

change in the circumstance warranting enlargement of the

petitioner/accused on bail.

Accordingly, the petition stands rejected.

SD/-

JUDGE

swk