- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:4353 CRL.P No. 671 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 671 OF 2025 (439(Cr.PC) / 483(BNSS)-) BETWEEN: MOHAMMAD ARBAZ AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, S/O MAHABOOB BASHA, DR.NO.2/7, SAI TENT HOUSE, VIDYA NAGAR, CHIKKAJALA, BANGALORE, KARNATAKA - 562 157. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. MOHAMED SAFIULLA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA VIJAYANAGARA POLICE STATION REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, 2. RAFIQ PASHA, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, S/O LATE MUNAVAR PASHA, DR.NO.6/3, CROSS, 7TH MAIN, PADARAYANAPURA, BENGALURU CITY, KARNATAKA - 560 026. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. ANITHA GIRISH, HCGP FOR R1) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 439 OF CR.P.C. (FILED U/S 483 BNNS) PRAYING TO GRANT REGULAR BAIL TO THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED IN CONNECTION WITH CR.NO.210/2021 OF VIJAYANAGAR P.S, FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/S 302 AND 201 R/W 34 OF IPC, IN THE COURT OF THE LXIV ADDL.CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH-65) SESSIONS CASE NO.1656/2021. Digitally signed by VEDAVATHI A K Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:4353 CRL.P No. 671 of 2025 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN ORAL ORDER This successive bail petition is filed by the petitioner/accused under Section 483 of BNSS Act (439 of Cr.P.C.) for granting regular bail in Crime No.210/2021 registered by Vijayanagar Police Station, Bengaluru, for the offence punishable under Sections 302 and 201 read with 34 of IPC, now pending on the file of LXIV Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru in S.C.No.1656/2021. 2. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner, learned HCGP for the respondent No.1/State. 3. The case of the prosecution is that on the complaint of the brother of the deceased one Rafiq Pasha, the police registered the case against the petitioner and others on 16.8.2021. It is alleged that the accused persons along with his brother who is a child conflict with the law, had assaulted and had attempted to commit murder and the injured was - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:4353 CRL.P No. 671 of 2025 shifted to the hospital. The case was registered under Section 307 of IPC the subsequently the injured was succumbed to the injuries, . Hence, the case was converted to 302 of IPC. 4. This petitioner was arrested on 16.08.2021 his bail application came to be rejected by this court 1.9.2022 in Crl.P.No.7074/2022. Subsequently, the trial started and some of the witnesses were examined, but the trial is not yet concluded. Hence, once again this petitioner is before this court. 5. Having heard the arguments and perused the records, on perusal of the same, this court rejected the bail application mainly on the ground, there are 3 eye witnesses CW14 to CW16, have categorically stated this petitioner stabbed on the chest of the deceased. There is apprehension that he may commit similar offence and tamper with the prosecution witnesses, apart from the prima facie case. Now the trial is already started as per the documents produced by the learned counsel. The PW1 was examined on 18.8.2022 itself. The brother of the deceased complainant also supported the case of the prosecution and there are 16 witnesses examined by the - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:4353 CRL.P No. 671 of 2025 prosecution, out of which PW9 to PW11 who are the eye witness they are cited as CW14 to CW16 on the charge sheet. All these three eye witnesses have supported the prosecution case. However, the accused counsel not cross examined those witness. The cross examination were deferred at request of the accused counsel in January 2024, now one year is completed. learned counsel for the accused persons not chosen to cross examine the witnesses. At this stage, when the complainant and the eye witnesses have already supported the case, when the eye witness were not yet cross examined by the learned counsel for the accused, if the accused is released on bail, there is every possibility of the accused threatening especially the eye witness, and chances of turning hostile in the cross examination is not ruled out. Therefore, in the interest of the prosecution , it is not a fit case for granting bail. Accordingly, this petition is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (K.NATARAJAN) JUDGE AKV List No.: 2 Sl No.: 3 CT:SK