VENUKUMAR R. Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

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

(2.) This petitioner is accused No.5 and he has filed this successive bail petition seeking for an order of bail. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner before this Court is that the statements of C.W.2 to C.W.5 not mentions the name of this petitioner and it is only stated that five persons surrounded him and inflicted injury. The learned counsel submits that C.W.2 was along with him and his statement also not discloses the name of the petitioner and there are no sufficient material against the petitioner and hence he may be enlarged on bail.

(3.) Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State submits that the incident was taken place on 28/8/2021 at 4.00 p.m. and C.W.2 was present along with him and on his information only, the complainant gave the complaint and in the complaint, specifically mentioned the name of the petitioner. This Court earlier rejected the bail petition of this petitioner in Crl.P.No.4430/2022 vide order dtd. 24/5/2022 and in paragraph No.7 taken note of the material, including CCTV footage of the bar, wherein the incident was taken place. This Court also taken note of that there were 30 injuries and cause of death was on account of multiple injuries and it was a barbaric act and merciless attack made with deadly weapons. There are no changed circumstances and hence the petitioner cannot be enlarged on bail.