RAKSHITH Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned HCGP appearing for the State.

(2.) This is a second successive bail petition and this Court earlier rejected the bail petition of this petitioner vide order dtd. 15/3/2022 in Crl.P.No.1030/2022 wherein an observation is made that the petitioner earlier had approached this Court in Crl.P. No.9994/2021 and the same was rejected vide order dtd. 4/1/2022 wherein this Court made an observation that merely because some of the witnesses have been examined and also granting of bail in favour of accused Nos.2 and 3 is not a ground to enlarge this petitioner on bail unless FSL report is received. It is also observed that this petitioner only having ill-will against the victim since the victim had video-graphed the fianc? ((THELAW))e of this petitioner and hence, he is having motive to commit the murder of the victim and when the case is rest upon the circumstantial evidence and last seen witnesses i.e., CW2 and CW3 have seen this petitioner and apart from that recovery also made at the instance of this petitioner i.e., weapon, cloth and also mobile belongs to the deceased, no grounds are made out to grant bail to the petitioner.

(3.) Now, the counsel for the petitioner contended that PW1 to PW19 have been examined and they have turned hostile and FSL report is also awaited and this petitioner is in custody from last two years and though this Court has directed to produce FSL report, till date not produced the same and the learned HCGP seeks another four weeks time to produce the same. The counsel also brought to notice of this Court that there is a discrepancy in the evidence of PW19 regarding sending of seized articles to FSL wherein he says that seized article was not sent to the FSL and hence, the petitioner may be enlarged on bail.