(Prayer: This Crl.p is filed under Section 439 Cr.p.c (filed u/s 483 BNNS) praying to grant regular bail to petitioner/accused no.3 in cr. no.224/2024 dated 27.03.2024 registered by the Banasawadi police at Bengaluru city now registered as Spl.c.c no.1961/2024 pending before the Honourable principal city civil and sessions judge at Bengaluru city for the offences punishable under sections 143, 144, 147, 148, 302, 102(b), 201 r/w 149 of the IPC and u/s 25 of arms act and u/s 3(1)(i) , 3(2), 3(4) of KCOC ACT.)

Oral Order:

1. This petition is filed by accused No.3 under Section 483 of BNSS praying to grant bail in Spl.CC.No.1961/2024 (Crime No.224/2024 of Banaswadi Police Station) registered for offences under Sections 143, 144, 147, 148, 302, 120B, 201 read with Section 149 of IPC, Section 25 of Arms Act and Section 3(1)(i), 3(2), 3(4) of Karnataka Control of Organized Crime Act, 2000 (for short ‘KCOC Act’).

2. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned Additional SPP for respondent/State.

3. Learned counsel for petitioner would contend that the complaint has been filed by the mother of the deceased on the basis of information given by CW.2. The name of the petitioner is not mentioned in the FIR. CW.2 has not named this petitioner and he has not disclosed name of this petitioner to complainant. The statement of CW.3 has been recorded on 02.07.2024 after lapse of 3 months from the date of incident. The statement of CW.2 has also been recorded under Section 183 of BNSS, wherein he has not stated the name of this petitioner. CWs.2 and 3 have stated the name of this petitioner in their statements before the police. The test identification parade has been conducted after showing the photos of the petitioner to the witnesses. Therefore, it is not having any sanctity. The spot mahazar has been conducted on the same day, wherein CW.2 and CW.3 were present and they have not disclosed the name of this petitioner. While examining CCTV footage, face match has not been conducted. Who disclosed the name of the petitioner to CW.2 and CW.3 is not mentioned. There is no recovery of any article at the instance of this petitioner. Accused No.6 has been granted bail. The deceased was a rowdy sheeter. There are no any criminal antecedents of this petitioner and he is aged 34 years. The charge sheet contains 120 witnesses and 5 volumes of documents and trial will take considerable time. On that point, he places reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Javed Ghulam Nabi Sheikh v. State of Maharashtra and another (2024) 9 SCC 813 wherein it is held as under:

                  16. Criminals are not born out but made. The human potential in everyone is good and so, never write off any criminal as beyond redemption. This humanist fundamental is often missed when dealing with delinquents, juvenile and adult. Indeed, every saint has a past and every sinner a future. When a crime is committed, a variety of factors is responsible for making the offender commit the crime. Those factors may be social and economic, may be, the result of value erosion or parental neglect; may be, because of the stress of circumstances, or the manifestation of temptations in a milieu of affluence contrasted with indigence or other privations.

                  17. If the State or any prosecuting agency including the court concerned has no wherewithal to provide or protect the fundamental right of an accused to have a speedy trial as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution then the State or any other prosecuting agency should not oppose the plea for bail on the ground that the crime committed is serious. Article 21 of the Constitution applies irrespective of the nature of the crime.

                  18.     We may hasten to add that the petitioner is still an accused; not a convict. The over-arching postulate of criminal jurisprudence that an accused is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty cannot be brushed aside lightly, howsoever stringent the penal law may be.

                  19.     We are convinced that the manner in which the prosecuting agency as well as the Court have proceeded, the right of the accused to have a speedy trial could be said to have been infringed thereby violating Article 21 of the Constitution.

                  On these grounds, he prayed to allow the petition.

4. Per contra, learned Additional SPP would contend that the deceased was a rowdy sheeter. Accused Nos.5 and 6 conspired to kill the deceased. The accused persons who are granted bail are either on the ground that they are not having any overt act or on medical grounds. The petitioner is the assailant and he has assaulted deceased with deadly weapon. The P.M. report indicates that there are 20 injuries over the dead body of the deceased and cause of his death is due to hemorrhagic shock as a result of injuries sustained. In the test identification parade, CW.2 and CW.3 have identified this petitioner/accused No.3. There is recovery of vehicle of this petitioner at his instance. The weapons seized from the accused persons were found to be blood stained as per FSL report. The petitioner has assaulted the deceased multiple times and he was wearing helmet to hide his identity. As the other accused are having criminal antecedents, the provisions of KCOC has been involved. The charge sheet material show prima-facie case against this petitioner. If the petitioner is granted bail, there are chances of him threatening the prosecution witnesses and flee from justice and commit similar offence. With this, she prayed to reject the petition.

5. Having heard the learned counsels, the Court has perused the charge sheet and other materials placed on record.

6. As per the case of the prosecution, the deceased who was a rowdy sheeter, having enmity with the accused persons, was sitting in the Paradise in-service apartment/hotel. At that time the accused persons who had conspired to kill the deceased entered the said area and in the guise of getting room they were moving in that place. At that time, the accused persons assaulted the deceased with deadly weapons and committed his murder. The said incident has been witnessed by CW2 and CW.3. CW.2 and CW.3 were staff in the said service apartment/hotel. There is overt act alleged against this petitioner, assaulting with long chopper on deceased and causing bleeding injuries. The incident has been recorded in the CCTV fixed in that area. CW.2 and CW.3 in their statements recorded have stated the name of this petitioner after photos have been shown to them as one of the assailants. The weapons seized at the instance of the petitioners are found to be blood stained. The offence alleged against the petitioner and other accused is a heinous offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life. Merely because the charge sheet records are voluminous and there are more number of witnesses in the charge sheet, is not a ground for grant of bail, when the offence alleged against is heinous offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life and there is a threat to the prosecution witnesses. The charge sheet material show prima-facie case against the petitioner and other accused for offences alleged against him. The accused persons who are granted bail are either on the ground that they are not having any overt act or on medical grounds.

7. Considering the above aspects, the petitioner has not made out any ground for grant of bail. In the result, the petition is dismissed.