MUBARAK Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is filed under Sec. 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking regular bail of the petitioner in S.C.No.27/2022 (Crime No.41/2022) of Shidlaghatta Town Police Station, Chickballapura District, for the offence punishable under Ss. 365 , 384 , 397 , 302 , 307 , 279 read with 34 of IPC .

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

(3.) This is a successive bail petition filed by accused No.4 and earlier he had approached this Court in Crl.P.No.4874/2022 and this Court vide order dtd. 23/6/2022 considered the bail petition on merits and in paragraph No.6 taking note of the incident was witnessed by C.W.1 and C.W.2 and out of that one of the eye-witness is injured witness and also taking note of recovery is made by this petitioner and C.W.2 identified the assailants, rejected the bail petition. Now, the learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that in 164 statement, the eye witnesses Syed Jabeer has not stated anything about this petitioner. Hence, he may be enlarged on bail.