DILIP KUMAR Vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is filed by the petitioner/accused under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking his release on bail of the alleged offences punishable under Sections 120(B), 396, 397, 302 and 201 of IPC registered in respondent police station

(2.) Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/accused No.5 and also the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that so far as present petitioner is concerned, his name does not figure in the complaint or in the FIR. It is also his submission that looking to the entire chargesheet material, there is no prima-facie case made out as against the present petitioner. Counsel further submits that petitioner earlier had applied seeking his release on bail but this Court has rejected his application. However, liberty was given to him to seek bail after examination of eye witnesses. Counsel submits now eye witnesses are examined however, they have not at all deposed against accused No.5. Looking to the evidence of CW1-the injured, she has not stated anything about the accused No.5. Hence, he submits that in view of the liberty given by this Court that after examination of eye witnesses he can again apply for bail, learned counsel prays that by imposing reasonable conditions, he may be enlarged on bail. Accused Nos.6 and 7 are already granted bail.