IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE K.N.PHANEENDRA CRIMINAL PETITION NO.7167 OF 2019 BETWEEN:
SRI. VENKATASWAMY, S/O VENKATARAMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, R/AT MALLASANDRA VILALGE, HOLUR HOBLI, KOLAR TALUK AND DIST PIN-57213.
NOW AT C/O SHIVAPRASAD LAND, NEAR NIMBEKAYIPURA, BIDARAHALLI, BENGALURU EAST. ...PETITIONER (BY SRI. NARASIMHA MURTHY. G.V., ADVOCATE) AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA BY AVALAHALLI POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BENGALURU-560 001. ...RESPONDENT (BY SRI.HONNAPPA, HIGH COURT GOVERNMENT PLEADER) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE, 1973, PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CR.No.353/2018 OF AVALAHALLY POLICE STATION, BENGALURU CITY, FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 302 OF IPC.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader for the State. Perused the records.
2. This is the second round of bail petition filed before this Court on the ground that the charge sheet has already been filed against the petitioner. Therefore, there are changed circumstances to approach this Court for grant of bail.
3. I have carefully perused the order dated 05.08.2019 passed by this Court in Criminal Petition No.1341/2019, which was in fact filed after filing of the charge sheet and registration of Sessions Case No.14/2019 before the trial Court. Therefore, the said submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner is baseless. The learned counsel has not made out in the petition as to what are all the changed circumstances which occurred after rejection of bail petition by this Court vide order dated 05.08.2019.
4. This Court while considering the previous bail petition has in detail considered the factual matrix of the case and also the circumstances which are pitted against the petitioner and also the statement of the witnesses with reference to the presence of the accused - injured at the time of the incident and non-explanation of the accused etc. On considering the merits of the case, this Court has held that the petition was devoid of merits, dismissed the same.
5. Under the above circumstances, without there being any changed circumstance, in my opinion, the second petition which is now filed is not maintainable. Hence, the same is also liable to be dismissed.
Accordingly, the Petition is dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE sma