- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:17936 CRL.P No. 5136 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF MAY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH CRIMINAL PETITION NO.5136 OF 2025 BETWEEN: 1. MR. KRISHNANANDA KINI, AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS, S/O LATE VASUDEVA KINI, R/AT FLAT NO.101A BLOCK, VEERA VENKATESHA APARTMENT, MAHAMAI TEMPLE ROAD, CAR STREET, MANGALLORE - 574 227. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. P.P.HEGDE, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. VENKATESH SOMAREDDI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE THROUGH THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MANGALORE NORTH POLICE STATION, MANGALORE, D.K. REPRESENTED BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU - 560 001. …RESPONDENT (BY SMT. K.P.YASHODA, HCGP) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 OF CR.PC (FILED U/S 483 BNNS) PRAYING TO GRANT AN ORDER OF REGULAR BAIL TO THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.1 IN CONNECTION WITH THE S.C.NO.48/2022 (ARISING OUT OF FIR IN CRIME NO.104/2021) BY MANGALURU NORTH Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:17936 CRL.P No. 5136 of 2025 POLICE STATION PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE COURT OF III ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE D.K., MANGALURU REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 302 R/W SECTION 34 OF IPC. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH ORAL ORDER This is a successive bail petition and earlier this Court vide order dated 24.06.2022 rejected the petition in Crl.P.No.3332/2022 and while rejecting the petition, in paragraph No.6 made an observation that apart from eye- witnesses, CCTV footage with regard to the incident is concerned is placed on record. 2. Now, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that already 18 witnesses have been examined and remaining witnesses are yet to be examined and it takes longer time. The petitioner is suffering from health issues 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 prosecution relies upon the CCTV footage and C.Ws.32, - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:17936 CRL.P No. 5136 of 2025 33 and 34 are the seizure witnesses of CCTV and remaining witnesses are doctor and the Investigating Officer and going to keep the official witnesses present in the next date of hearing. The learned counsel submits that this Court has already given finding with regard to the prima facie case is concerned earlier and hence a direction may be given to dispose of the matter expeditiously. 4. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent State, this Court earlier rejected the bail petition vide order dated 24.06.2022 and also made an observation in paragraph No.6 with regard to no ground is made out to exercise the discretion. In view of already number of witnesses have been examined before the Trial Court and only remaining witnesses are with regard to CCTV seizure as well as the official witnesses, hence the State is directed to keep those witnesses present on the next date of hearing without seeking any adjournment. The Trial Court is directed to consider the matter after examining the material witnesses, on merits expeditiously. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:17936 CRL.P No. 5136 of 2025 5. With these observations, the petition is disposed of. Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE MD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 25