MAHAMMED THOUSIF AKBAR Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

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

(2.) This is a successive bail petition filed by the petitioner/accused No.4 and this Court, earlier, rejected the bail petition filed by this petitioner on 19/1/2022 in Crl.P.No.10033/2021 wherein this Court, in paragraph 6, considered the material available on record wherein it discloses that there is an overt act allegation against accused Nos.1 and this petitioner and also observed that there are eye-witnesses to the incident i.e., CW12, 16 to 20 and other eye-witnesses have also sustained injuries and comes to the conclusion that it is not a fit case to exercise the discretion in favour of this petitioner and also accused No.1.

(3.) The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner relied upon the judgment of Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Crl.P.No.9609/2021 dtd. 22/12/2021 wherein bail was granted in favour of accused No.2. The said order was also considered in the earlier bail petition and this Court held that the said order will not comes to the aid of this petitioner when the specific overt act allegations are made against this petitioner and accused No.1 and only an allegation against accused No.2 in that order that he assaulted with his hand. The counsel for the petitioner would contend that the allegations against this petitioner is that he pushed the victim as a result he fell down to the drainage and also the material discloses that he fell down on account of push made by this petitioner and accused No.1 inflicted injury with the weapon on the victim. When such being the material available on record, there is no any changed circumstances in the present petition and earlier also, the very same judgment of granting bail in favour of accused No.2 was relied upon and today also the same judgment is relied upon. Unless the petitioner placed any other material before the Court and other than the grounds which have been urged earlier, the question of reconsidering the bail petition does not arise when the same grounds are urged and the same material is placed before the Court as that of in the earlier bail petition. Hence, there is no ground made out to exercise the discretion in favour 0of this petitioner in a successive bail petition to enlarge him on bail.