Shashikumara @ Shashi vs State By The Station House Officer Electronic City Police Station Bangalore Represented By State Public Prosecutor High Court Of Karnataka Bangalore-560001

H.P. Sandesh, J

This petition is filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., seeking regular bail of the petitioner/accused No.9 in respect of Crime No.262/2021 (C.C.No.7831/2022) registered by Electronic City Police Station, Bengaluru City, for the offences punishable under Sections 120B, 143, 144, 147, 148, 150, 341, 427, 307, 302 read with 149 of IPC and Sections 4 & 25(1B)(b) of Indian Arms Act, 1959.

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State.

This is a successive bail petition. This Court earlier rejected the bail petition in Crl.P.No.5959/2022 vide order dated 13.07.2022, after filing of the charge-sheet. This petitioner has been arraigned as accused No.9 and observed that this petitioner was preventing the general public not to save the victim while inflicting the injury and also observed that there were 46 injuries as per the post-mortem report. Apart from that, other eye witnesses have also sustained the injuries and invoked the offence under Section 307 read with Section 149 of IPC, taking note of the fact that he is also a part of member of an unlawful assembly in furtherance of the common object, an act has been committed.

Now, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that this petitioner is in custody from 03.01.2022 and he has not committed any offence. The only allegation is that he was holding the deadly weapons at the time of committing the offence.

Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State would submit that there is no changed circumstance. This Court in detail passed an order that after filing of the charge-sheet considered the material on record and CWs.1 to 6 are the eye witnesses to the incident and they have identified this petitioner and the question of granting bail in a successive bail petition does not arise in the absence of changed circumstances.

Having heard the respective counsel and on perusal of the material available on record and also this Court in detail passed an order on 13.07.2022, the only contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that he is in custody from 03.01.2022, the same cannot be a ground to enlarge the petitioner on bail in a case of an offence punishable under Sections 302 and 307 of IPC. There are eye witnesses to the incident i.e., CWs.1 to 6, and those witnesses have not been examined. When this Court has already formed an opinion that there are sufficient materials against this petitioner, the question of entertaining the successive bail petition does not arise in the absence of any changed circumstances. However, the petitioner is given liberty after examination of CWs.1 to 10 as sought by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

Accordingly, this petition stands disposed of.