- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:6894 CRL.P No. 13456 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 13456 OF 2024 BETWEEN: 1. MR. RAVI KUMAR S/O CHALAPATHI AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS R/OF APPAJIHALLI VILLAGE, NAGALAMADIKE HOBLI, PAVAGADA TALUK TUMAKURU - 572 101. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. VINAY KEERTHY M., ADVOCATE SRI. PRABHU PUJAR S., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY THIRUMANI POLICE STATION, TUMAKURU DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BENGALURU – 560 001. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. VINAY MAHADEVAIAH, HCGP) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 CR.PC (FILED U/S 483 BNSS) PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.1 ON REGULAR BAIL IN CR.NO.83/2021 S.C.NO.5014/2022 OF THIRUMANI P.S TUMAKURU DISTRICT FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 302, 120B R/W 34 OF IPC, WHICH IS PENDING ON THE FILE OF IV ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE MADHUGIRI, TUMAKURU DISTRICT. Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:6894 CRL.P No. 13456 of 2024 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 filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking regular bail of the petitioner/accused in Crime No.83/2021 of Thirumani Police Station, Y.N. Hosakote Circle, Tumakuru, for the offence punishable under Section 302 and 120B read with Section 34 IPC. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent- State. 3. This Court earlier disposed of the petition of this petitioner, wherein observed that P.W.1 has supported the case partly and the evidence of P.W.2 is also not completed for want of 164 statement. Merely because P.W.3 has turned hostile, this Court cannot exercise the discretion and exercise of discretion vests with the Trial Court to appreciate the evidence of the prosecution and also observed that unless other - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:6894 CRL.P No. 13456 of 2024 circumstantial witnesses are examined, it is not a case of exercising the discretion in favour of the petitioner. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner now contends that C.Ws.9 and 10 have been examined and C.W.10 has not supported the case of the prosecution and C.W.9 has partly supported the case of the prosecution. Learned counsel also would vehemently contend that case rests upon circumstantial evidence and this petitioner is in custody from 2021 and hence, he may be enlarged on bail. 5. Per contra, learned HCGP for the respondent-State would contend that this Court earlier considered the petition of this petitioner in Crl.P.No.4499/2023 vide order dated 14.06.2023 and made an observation that three witnesses have been examined and P.Ws.1 and 3 have turned hostile and also the recovery witnesses to be examined. He also brought to notice of this Court FSL report, particularly seizure of clothes from the petitioner i.e., blood stained T-shirt and Barmoda belonging to this petitioner. The FSL report is positive that the blood stain of the deceased found in the cloth of this petitioner. Hence, the petitioner is not entitled for grant of bail. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:6894 CRL.P No. 13456 of 2024 6. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned HCGP for the respondent-State, no doubt, this Court granted bail in favour of the accused No.2 and while considering bail petition of this petitioner which was rejected earlier and subsequently, when one more petition was filed in Crl.P.No.4499/2023, in paragraph No.6, made an observation with regard to overt act allegation made against this petitioner and iron road and machete used for inflicting injury on the vital part of the victim and also taken note of seizure of clothes belonging to the petitioner. This Court also taken note of evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2, wherein P.W.1 has partly supported the case of the prosecution and the evidence of P.W.2 is not completed for want of 164 statement. 7. When such being the case, this Court cannot usurp the jurisdiction of the Trial Court and sit and appreciate the evidence on record and only the Trial Court can appreciate the material on record. The very contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is in custody from 2021 is not a ground to enlarge him on bail, when serious offence of taking away the life of a person is alleged against the petitioner. The PM report clearly disclose that death is on - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:6894 CRL.P No. 13456 of 2024 account of head injury sustained by him. Apart from that, FSL report supports the case of the prosecution. Hence, it is not a fit case to exercise the discretion in favour of the petitioner, in view of earlier observation made with regard to approach this Court after examination of C.Ws.9 and 10. Now, they have been examined and mere examination of these witnesses and having fully not supported the case of the prosecution cannot be a ground to enlarge the petitioner on bail and Trial Court has to appreciate the same on merits. Hence, no ground to enlarge the petitioner on bail. Accordingly, the criminal petition is rejected. Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE ST List No.: 1 Sl No.: 4