Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Abdul Majeed, filed a successive bail petition under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) seeking enlargement on bail in Crime No.178/2021 registered at Udayagiri Police Station, Mysuru, for offences punishable under Sections 143, 144, 147, 148, 341, 342, 323, 324, 364, 307, 302, 506 read with 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). The case arose from an incident where the deceased was assaulted by a group and succumbed to injuries. The petitioner's earlier bail petition (Crl.P.No.4008/2022) was dismissed on merits on 01.07.2022 after the charge-sheet was filed. In the present petition, the petitioner argued that his name was not mentioned in the FIR or in the requisition forms sent to the doctor for post-mortem, and that the injured deceased, when admitted to Narayana Hrudalaya hospital, did not name the petitioner as an assailant. He contended that he was implicated only after five days, on 20.08.2021. The petitioner further submitted that the sole eye-witness (CW19) gave a statement allegedly on 16.08.2021, but there was no reference to this statement in the remand applications dated 16.08.2021 and 20.08.2021, and that the overt act attributed to him in the charge-sheet was an improved version contrary to mobile video recordings. The State opposed the bail, arguing that the petitioner's involvement was established by the eye-witness and the charge-sheet. The court, after hearing both sides, observed that the earlier bail petition was dismissed on merits and the new grounds raised did not warrant a different conclusion. The court noted that the eye-witness statement and the charge-sheet prima facie implicated the petitioner, and that the alleged improvements and contradictions were matters for trial. Consequently, the court dismissed the successive bail petition, finding no merit in the petitioner's contentions.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure Code - Successive Bail Petition - Section 439 CrPC - New Grounds - The court considered a successive bail petition where the petitioner contended that his name was not in the FIR or hospital history, and that he was implicated after five days. The court held that the earlier bail petition was dismissed on merits and the new grounds raised were not sufficient to grant bail, as the eye-witness statement and charge-sheet implicated the petitioner. (Paras 2-4) B) Indian Penal Code - Murder - Bail - Sections 302, 307, 364, 149 IPC - The petitioner was charged with murder and other offences. The court noted that the deceased died due to assault by a group, and the petitioner was named by an eye-witness. The court found that the petitioner's involvement was prima facie established, and dismissed the bail petition. (Paras 2-4)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the petitioner is entitled to bail in a successive bail petition under Section 439 CrPC for offences including murder, when his name was not mentioned in the FIR or hospital history but was implicated later based on an eye-witness statement.
Final Decision
The successive bail petition is dismissed. The court found no merit in the petitioner's contentions and held that the earlier dismissal on merits and the prima facie case against the petitioner warranted rejection of bail.
Law Points
- Successive bail petition
- Section 439 CrPC
- bail in murder case
- consideration of new grounds
- delay in implication
- eye-witness credibility
