- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:6828 CRL.P No. 1169 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 1169 OF 2025 (439(Cr.PC) / 483(BNSS)-) BETWEEN: MAHENDRA DEVASI @ MAHENDRA BERARAM S/O BORARAM, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, R/AT KEVIL VILLAGE, RAYAPURA THASIL, PALI DISTRICT, RAJASTHAN - 306 401. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. RAM SINGH K., ADVOCATE) AND: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY CHAMARAJPET POLICE STATION, BENGALURU, REPRESENTED BY SPP, THE HIGH COURT BUILDING, BENGALURU - 560 001. …RESPONDENT (BY SMT. ANITHA GIRISH, HCGP) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 439 OF CR.P.C. (FILED U/S 483 BNNS) PRAYING TO THE ENLARGE HIM ON BAIL IN CRIME NO.60/2022 S.C.NO.1954/2022 FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCES PUNISHABLE AND IN U/S 381, 302, 120(B), R/W 34 AND 35 OF IPC WHICH IS PENDING BEFORE THE LEARNED LXI ADDL., CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, (CCH-62), BENGALURU. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: Digitally signed by VEDAVATHI A K Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:6828 CRL.P No. 1169 of 2025 CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN ORAL ORDER This third successive bail petition is filed by the petitioner/accused No.4 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C./483 of BNSS for granting bail, in Crime No.60/2022, now pending on the file of LXI Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru in S.C.No.1954/2022 for having charge sheeted by the Chamrajpet Police station for the offences punishable under Sections 381, 302, 120(B), read with 34 and 35 of IPC. 2. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner and learned HCGP. 3. The case of the prosecution is that the accused No.1 said to be servant of the deceased Jagaraj Jain and he was in dire need of ₹5 lakhs for house expenses and he requested money from the deceased, but the deceased had denied giving it to accused No.1. Later, accused No.1 found huge gold and silver articles and cash in the house. Therefore, he hatched a plan along with the accused No.4, the present petitioner for committing dacoity. Accordingly, he has contacted accused No.4 and requested him to send some persons to execute the plan. Previously the accused no.4/present petitioner had given - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:6828 CRL.P No. 1169 of 2025 telephone number of accused No.2, for getting his assistance for committing dacoity, but accused No.2 did not agree. Therefore, once again accused No.1 contacted this petitioner for assistance. Hence, the accused No.4, present petitioner had given phone number of the accused No.3 ,who is the brother of this petitioner for help. Accordingly, they hatched conspiracy and on 24.5.2022, the accused No.1 came to the house of the employer and committed the murder and looted the golden ornaments, silver articles and cash with the help of accused No.3. Subsequently, went to the shop of accused No.3 and gave golden ornaments. Then accused No.4 along with accused No.5 took ₹45 lakhs. Accordingly, the police have traced the accused persons and has remanded them to judicial custody. This present petitioner was arrested on 04.06.2022 his earlier bail petition dated 24.8.2022, has been dismissed by this court. Once again the petitioner is before this court. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended the trial is not yet completed the main witnesses stating about the recovery of cash by the PW11 and PW12 have turned hostile. Therefore, there is no evidence against him and therefore he is entitled for bail. He also contended that the trial still takes - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:6828 CRL.P No. 1169 of 2025 some more time. He is in custody for more than 3 years. Hence prayed for granting bail. 5. Per contra learned HCGP objected the petition. 6. On hearing the arguments, perused the records, which reveals this court already dismissed the petition on merits twice, by analysing the material on fact. Apart from that, this court also dismissed the bail petition of co-accused persons numerous time and once again this petitioner is before this court, only on the ground that the PW11 and PW12 said to be turned hostile, therefore he should be granted bail. Ofcourse the case is based upon the circumstantial evidence, not only the recovery of the cash, but also some other circumstances. Merely, two witnesses turned hostile and this court cannot give findings on the evidence of the Trial Court. The Investigating Officer still has to be examined, apart from other witnesses. Therefore, it is not fit case for considering the bail at the fag end of the trial. Hence, this petition is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (K.NATARAJAN) JUDGE AKV List No.: 2 Sl No.: 3_CT:SK