CHARAN K.M. Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is a third successive bail petition and this Court earlier rejected the bail petition of the petitioner on merits vide order dtd. 28/6/2022 in Crl.P.No.3768/2022. The petitioner also filed one more petition in Crl.P.No.10468/2022 and the same was dismissed vide order dtd. 16/12/2022. Now, in the third successive bail petition, the learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the matter is still pending for framing of charge and the evidence is not yet commenced. The learned counsel would contend that accused Nos.3 to 6 have already been enlarged on bail and investigation has been completed and charge-sheet is filed and there are no chances of threatening. The learned counsel submits that the petitioner is in custody from 2021 and the mother of the petitioner is not keeping well and hence he may be enlarged on bail.

(2.) Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State submits that already this Court has considered the matter twice on merits and this is a third successive petition and no grounds are made out to enlarge him on bail and there are no any changed circumstances.

(3.) Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the first ground urged before this Court is that the matter is still pending for framing of charge and the evidence has not been commenced. On perusal of the FIR, the incident was taken place on 19/9/2021 and no doubt, the petitioner is in custody from the date of his arrest and the offences invoked against the petitioner are Ss. 302 , 143 , 147 , 148 , 504 read with 149 of IPC . A serious allegation of taking away the life of a person is alleged against the petitioner and this Court in Crl.P.No.3768/2022 vide order dtd. 28/6/2022 considered the matter on merits and rejected the bail petition of the petitioner. In the subsequent bail petition in Crl.P.No.10468/2022 vide order dtd. 16/12/2022, this Court relying upon the judgments of the Apex Court in the case of RAMESH BHAVAN RATHOD v. VISHANBHAI HIRABHAI MAKWANA (KOLI) AND ANOTHER reported in (2021) 6 SCC 230 and in the case of KUMER SINGH v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ANOTHER reported in 2021 Crl.L.J. 4244, rejected the petition. In the present petition, there are no any changed circumstances stated except stating that the mother of the petitioner is not keeping well. The petitioner also not produced any documents to show that the mother is not keeping well except mentioning the same during the oral arguments. The petitioner is in custody from 2021 is not a ground to enlarge him on bail when a heinous offence of Sec. 302 is invoked against him. The other contention that accused Nos.3 to 6 have already been enlarged on bail and the same was earlier considered in earlier petitions. Hence, I do not find any ground to enlarge the petitioner on bail.