VAJRASWAMY Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties.

(2.) This is a successive bail petition. Earlier this petitioner had approached this Court in Crl.P.No.1912/2021 and the same was rejected vide order dtd. 20/4/2021 wherein this Court observed that CW2 who witnessed the incident has not given the complaint but he informed the same to CW1 and CW1 in turn had lodged the complaint and CW2 is also an accused and he has been charge sheeted for the offence punishable under Sec. 302 of IPC and hence, credence cannot be given to his statement. When CW2 witnessed the incident and merely because he was also charge sheeted for the offence punishable under Sec. 302 of IPC is not a ground to enlarge the petitioner on bail. This Court also taken note of the fact that this petitioner only inflicted the injury on the vital part of the deceased i.e., to the neck with macchu which he carried in his car and hence, rejected the bail petition.

(3.) Now, the counsel for the petitioner would vehemently contend that witness who has been examined before the Court is not fully supported the case of the prosecution and the copy of the deposition of CW2 who has been examined as PW3 is also placed before the Court and brought to notice of this Court at page 13 of the deposition wherein CW2 admitted with regard to the relationship between the parties and he also admitted that his father-in-law had lodged the complaint and he gave the evidence that at the instigation of this petitioner, his father-in-law had lodged the complaint and hence, the Court has to take note of the evidence of CW2. The counsel for the petitioner further submits that this petitioner is in custody from 2020 and only three witnesses have been examined till date and prayed to enlarge the petitioner on bail.