KUMAR S. Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed this petition under Sec. 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 Ss. 143 , 147 , 148 , 114 , 212 , 427 , 326 , 307 , 302 and 120 (B) read with Sec. 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 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 continue him in the judicial custody, his successive bail petition cannot be entertained.