ORDER : The present petitioner was accused No.11 in Crime No.190/2018 of the respondent – police which was registered for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 324, 354, 302, 109, 504, 506 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter for brevity referred to as `IPC’) and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 2(v) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. 2. The petitioner was accused No.11 and there were in total thirteen accused in the said crime. Through this petition filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioner seeks the relief of anticipatory bail contending that the case against the remaining accused has been ended in acquittal, as such he is entitled to anticipatory bail. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner reiterating the said contention also submits that even otherwise there are no serious overtact alleged against the present petitioner. 4. Learned High Court Government Pleader submits that this act of the accused/petitioner is nothing but a tactic which was adopted by him and who remained absconded and watching the proceedings and ensuring the acquittal of other accused has now sought for the relief of anticipatory bail through the present petition. 5. The petitioner along with thirteen others were charge sheeted for the various offences including the one punishable under Section 302 of IPC for the alleged murder of one Sri Nandappa on 12.05.2018. The said Sri Nandappa is said to have been attacked by the accused, including the present petitioner, in an open land and was brutally murdered. The charge sheet was also filed against thirteen accused for the alleged offences. Among whom, except the present accused/petitioner, others have faced trial in Spl.Case No.55/2018 in the Court of Sessions Judge and Special Court at Yadgiri. However, the said trial ended in acquittal vide judgment dated 19.11.2019. 6. No doubt, the trial against other accused has been ended in acquittal and the same cannot be a ground for the present petitioner to seek relief of anticipatory bail, since, neither he has faced the trial nor was amenable to the Court at the time of conduction of trial. A perusal of the certified copy of the judgment passed in Spl.Case No.55/2018 would go to show that the present petitioner since has remained absent, a split up charge sheet was ordered to be filed against him. A perusal of the certified copy of the judgment passed in Spl.Case No.55/2018 would go to show that the present petitioner since has remained absent, a split up charge sheet was ordered to be filed against him. In such a situation, when the present petitioner is one of the accused, he himself has avoided from making himself available for trial and could able to manage by being absconded, hence, the case against the other accused was continued. The same would reflect the conduct of the petitioner. As such, in the said circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the accused/petitioner does not deserve the relief of anticipatory bail as prayed. Accordingly, the Petition stands dismissed.