- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:9537 CRL.A No.1337/2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1337/2023 BETWEEN: SHRI.ABHISHEK @ CHOKI S/O LATE SUBRAMANI (AS PER CHARGE-SHEET) AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS RESIDENT OF NO.7, 5TH CROSS, HOYSALA LAYOUT, SERVICE STATION ROAD AMRUTHAHALLI, BENGALURU–560 092 … APPELLANT (BY SMT.MANORANJINI, PANEL ADVOCATE FOR HCLSC) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY AMRUTHAHALLI P. S., REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BANGALORE 560001. 2. SHRI.SATHISH S., S/O LATE SHANKAR, AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, R/AT NEAR GOVERNMENT SCHOOL, DASARAHALLI VILLAGE, A FARM POST, BENGALURU – 560 024. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT.SOWMYA R, HCGP FOR R1; R2 SERVED) THIS CRL.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 14(A) (2) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT, 2015 PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LXX ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS COURT, AT BENGALURU CITY IN CRL.MISC.No.3886/2023 ORDER DATED 31.05.2023. Digitally signed by LAKSHMINARAYANA MURTHY RAJASHRI Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:9537 CRL.A No.1337/2023 THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL ORAL JUDGMENT This successive appeal is filed by accused No.2 in Special Case No.760/2020 pending on the file of the LXX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge at Bengaluru for the trial of offence under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short 'SC/ST (PoA) Act), challenging order of rejection of his successive bail application. 2. The appellant/accused No.2 is being tried along with accused Nos.1 and 3 on Spl. Case No.760/2020 for the offences punishable under Sections 120(B), 201, 302 read with 34 Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (PoA) Act on the basis of the complaint of CW.1-Sathish. 3. Accused No.1 is the wife of the deceased Harish. It is alleged that accused No.1 and accused No.2 had illicit relationship with each other, therefore to eliminate Harish, they conspired with accused No.3. In execution of such conspiracy, - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:9537 CRL.A No.1337/2023 during the intervening night of 9/10.07.2020, at 1.00 a.m., when Harish was sleeping at home, on the information of accused No.1, the appellant/accused No.2 and accused No.3 entered his house, the appellant with a sized stone crushed the head of Harish and accused No.3 stabbed Harish and committed his murder. Further to screen the evidence of office, the accused carried and dumped the dead body in a nearby storm water drain. 4. The first bail application of the appellant was rejected by the Trial Court. He challenged that order before this Court in Criminal Appeal No.1618/2021. This Court considering the merits of the case, by order dated 14.01.2022 dismissed the said appeal. Thereafter, the appellant filed successive bail petition before the Trial Court in Crl.Misc.No.3886/2023. The Trial Court by the impugned order dated 31.05.2023 has rejected the said application. This appeal is filed challenging the said order. 5. Since this is a successive appeal arising out of successive bail petition, there is no scope to consider the appeal again on merits. The appeal can be entertained only if - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:9537 CRL.A No.1337/2023 there are changed circumstances. The 1st changed circumstance urged by the appellant is that there is considerable delay, in trial. Secondly, CW-9 who is the star witness of the prosecution has not deposed consistently regarding involvement of the appellant. 6. Learned HCGP submits that CWs.33 and 34 the Police Officers who investigated the matter, other witnesses have already been examined and even summons are issued to CWs.33 and 34. It is submitted that now the matter is listed on 20.03.2025. Therefore, the trial is almost at the verge of completion. The said position is not disputed. 7. So far as the credibility of the evidence of CW.9/PW.13, that has to be evaluated along with other evidence on record. The Trial Court on considering that aspect has rejected the application. It is material to note that initially the appellant himself had filed memo for withdrawal of the appeal. 8. Under the aforesaid circumstances, this Court does not find any changed circumstance to revisit the impugned order passed by the Trial Court or the earlier order passed by - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:9537 CRL.A No.1337/2023 this Court. The appeal can be disposed of requesting the Trial Court for expeditious disposal of the matter. Hence, the following order, ORDER i) Appeal is dismissed. ii) The Trial Court is hereby requested to expedite the trial and dispose of the matter as expeditiously as possible. This Court places on record the valuable assistance rendered by the Smt. Manoranjini, Panel Advocate, Karnataka High Court Legal Services Committee. Sd/- (K.S.MUDAGAL) JUDGE MV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 15