1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 18^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.9903/2022

BETWEEN:

V.VISHNU DEVAN @ VISU @ POCHI

S/O C.K. VASUDEVAN

AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS

R/AT NO. 45, ADE COMPOUND

80 FEET ROAD, THIPPASANDRA

BENGALURU-560 075.

& PETITIONER

(BY SRI GIRISHA B.N., ADVOCATE)

AND:

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

BY BYAPPANAHALLI P.S.,

BENGALURU CITY,

REPTD. BY GOVT. PLEATER

HIGH COURT BUILDINGS,

BENGALURU-560 001.

& RESPONDENT

(BY SRI K.K.KRISHNA KUMAR, HCGP)

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439

OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN

CR.NO.206/2021 (S.C.NO.445/2022) OF BYAPPANAHALLI P.S.,

BANGALORE FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/Ss.341, 323, 302 R/W.

SECTION 34 OF IPC ON THE FILE OF THE XXVI ADDL. CITY CIVIL

AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MAYO HALL, BENGALURU.

2

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS

DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

O R D E R

This petition is filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., seeking

regular bail of the petitioner/accused No.1 in Crime No.206/2021

of Byappanahalli Police Station, Bengaluru City, for the offences

punishable under Sections 341, 323, 302 read with Section 34 of

IPC.

2.

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the

petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader

appearing for the respondent/State.

3.

This is a successive bail petition filed by the

petitioner. Earlier this Court rejected the bail petition in

Crl.P.No.3899/2022 vide order dated 04.07.2022, considering

the matter on merits. This Court while rejecting the bail petition

in paragraph No.6 taken note of the fact that the cause of death

mentioned in the post-mortem report is on account of the

multiple injuries sustained by the victim. This Court also has

taken note of the statements of CWs.2 and 3, who are the eye

3

witnesses to the incident. CW.1 has stated that when this

petitioner started to inflict injury with a knife he went and

brought his other room mates. The statements of CWs.2 and 3

were recorded before the learned Magistrate that he were the

eyewitness to the incident. Apart from that, a blood stained

knife was recovered at the instance of the petitioner, the same

was seized and sent to the FSL and the FSL report is awaited.

Having taken note of the material available on record,

particularly, the prima facie case against the petitioner about the

specific overt act and also the statements of CWs.1 to 3, the bail

petition was rejected.

4.

Now, the learned counsel for the petitioner would

submit that a new ground was urged before the Trial Court that

CCTV was installed in the said shop and the same was not seized

by the Police and intentionally they withheld the evidence. The

learned counsel also would submit that an affidavit is also filed

stating that the CCTV footage was in existence and the same has

not been collected.

4

5.

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in

support of his arguments he relied upon the judgment of the

Apex Court in the case of Tomaso Bruno and another v. State

of Uttar Pradesh reported in (2015) 7 SCC 178, wherein, the

Apex Court held that when an information is accessible to

Investigating agency to produce the same and failure to produce

relevant evidence, an adverse inference can be drawn, but held

that depends upon the nature of evidence, its importance, etc.,

the burden held on the prosecution to produce the same before

the Trial Court. The learned counsel also vehemently contends

that the Trial Court has not considered the same.

6.

Per contra, the learned High Court Government

Pleader appearing for the State would submit that no such CCTV

footage was seized during the course of investigation and also

not found and nothing is mentioned in the Property Form

regarding seizure or any of the witnesses have spoken with

regard to the existence of CCTV. Hence, the question