In cases where accused persons are alleged to have shared a common intention under Section 149 of IPC, individual roles may not be required to be considered for granting bail.

ORDER :

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the State.

2. This is a successive bail petition and earlier, this Court considered the bail petition filed in Crl.P.No.4008/2022 on merits after filing of the charge-sheet and dismissed the same vide order dated 01.07.2022 and now the present successive bail petition is filed contending that the name of this petitioner is not mentioned in the FIR and also in the requisition Form No.146(i) and (ii) sent to doctor for post-mortem which is prepared after inquest. It is also contended that at the earliest point of time when the injured deceased was taken to Narayana Hrudalaya hospital and got admitted, while giving history, the name of the petitioner is not mentioned as one of the assailant and only this petitioner has been implicated after five days of the incident that is on 20.08.2021. Only one eye-witness i.e., CW19 though his statement alleged to have been recorded on 16.08.2021, there is no reference in any of the remand application in the case diary for having recorded on that day and no details in remand applications dated 16.08.2021 and 20.08.2021 and no overt act of assault is attributed against this petitioner but in the statement of the eye-witness CW19, the alleged overt act is improved and added at the time of filing of the charge-sheet. The improved version is contrary to mobile video recordings which is relied as electronic evidence and presence of this petitioner is not there. When the prosecution relies on the mobile video as one of the document and relied on the pen drive, ought to have been furnished to the accused. But the same has not been furnished. Since this petitioner is the brother-in-law of accused Nos.1 and son-in-law of accused No.2, while implication of accused Nos.1 to 3, at belated stage, this petitioner also has been subsequently added as accused No.5. This petitioner is in judicial custody since 20.08.2021 and the case of the petitioner is similar to accused No.7, 8 and 4 who have been enlarged on bail and on the ground of parity, this petitioner is entitled for the bail and no any bad antecedents against this petitioner.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that in the spot mahazar, no details of presence of this petitioner and in the remand application also not named this petitioner and no overt act as per CC TV mahazar except discloses that he was present at the spot of the incident. These grounds are not urged earlier hence, in the successive bail petition, the same grounds are urged.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner also filed a memo along with mahazar and pen drive which was drawn on 20.08.2021 regarding seizure of mobile and brought to notice of this Court to paragraph 2 of page 4 to show that no overt act allegation against this petitioner and in the video of 1 minute 30 seconds which was played narrated that what has been found in the said video and no details with regard to this petitioner except questioning the victim that how many girls were subjected to the harassment and why he had done the same to their girl and contended that no overt act allegation against this petitioner except the presence of the petitioner at the time of committing the murder.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in support of his arguments, relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of BABU SINGH AND OTHERS vs STATE OF UP reported in (1978) 1 SCC 579 wherein it is held regarding refusing an application for bail does not necessarily preclude another on a later occasion giving more materials, further developments and different considerations. The learned counsel also relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of LT. COL. PRASAD SHRIKANT PUROHIT vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA reported in (2018) 11 SCC 458 wherein the Apex Court discussed with regard to though an accused has a right to make successive applications for