ORDER : (S. VISHWAJITH SHETTY, J.) 1. Accused No.7 in S.C.No.47/2021 pending before the Court of VI Addl. District and Sessions Judge, D.K., Mangaluru arising out of Crime No.38/2020 registered by the Mulki Police Station, Mangaluru, for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 114, 109, 120B, 341, 307, 302 read with Section 149 of IPC, is before this Court in this successive bail application filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., seeking regular bail. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 3. FIR in Crime No.38/2020 was registered by Mulki Police Station, Mangaluru, initially for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 307, 302, 395 read with Section 149 of IPC against one Davood Hakeem and others based on first information dated 05.06.2020 received from Imran, son of the deceased. During the course of investigation, petitioner herein was arrested on 06.06.2020. After investigation, charge sheet has been filed against ten persons and petitioner is arraigned as accused No.7 in the charge sheet. Bail application filed by the petitioner before the jurisdictional Sessions Court was initially allowed and the said order was questioned by the defacto complainant before this Court in Crl.P.No.2557/2021 and connected petitions which were allowed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 26.08.2021 and the bail granted to the petitioner and other accused was cancelled. The said order was confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP(Crl)Nos.7586-7592/2021 disposed off on 20.10.2021. Thereafter, petitioner had once again filed Crl.P.No.11045/2022 before this Court which was dismissed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 11.04.2023. As against the same, petitioner had approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP (Crl.) Diary No.46671/2023 and the said petition was disposed off reserving liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh bail application before the Trial Court after examination of the alleged eye witnesses is completed. Petitioner had thereafter filed a fresh bail application before the Trial Court in SC No.47/2021 which was dismissed on 05.12.2024. Therefore, he is before this Court in this successive bail application. 4. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner, who has no other criminal antecedents is in custody for the last more than five years. All material charge sheet witnesses have been examined in the present case. Therefore, he is before this Court in this successive bail application. 4. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner, who has no other criminal antecedents is in custody for the last more than five years. All material charge sheet witnesses have been examined in the present case. Accused Nos.6, 9 and 10 as against whom similar allegations are found in the charge sheet have been granted regular bail by this Court. He submits that accused No.1 also has been granted regular bail by this Court. Accordingly, prays to allow the petition. 5. Learned Addl. SPP for the State and learned counsel for the defacto complainant have seriously opposed the petition. They submit that petitioner is one of the assailants and earlier, he had threatened CW20 after he was released on bail. In the event, he is enlarged on bail, he is likely to tamper with the remaining prosecution witnesses. Accordingly, they pray to dismiss the petition. 6. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner in reply submits that case registered against the petitioner for having allegedly threatened CW20 has been stayed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Crl.P.No.8036/2023 and the said petition is pending. 7. A perusal of the charge sheet allegations would go to show that accused No.1 had conspired with accused Nos.2 to 10 to commit the murder of deceased Abdul Lathif, CW2 and CW3. In furtherance of said conspiracy, on 05.06.2020, accused Nos.2 to 10 had followed CW2 to 4, who were traveling in a car bearing registration No.MH-06-AB-7677 and at about 04.05 p.m., accused Nos.2 to 10 allegedly intercepted the car in which CW2 to 4 were traveling and thereafter, assaulted them. At that time, Abdul Lathif also came to the spot and accused No.6 allegedly pushed him and all the other accused persons chased Abdul Lathif and assaulted him with deadly weapons and committed his murder. In the alleged incident, CW2 and CW3 also had suffered grievous injuries. In the charge sheet, allegation of assaulting Abdul Lathif, CW2 and CW3 is found as against accused Nos.2 to 10. 8. Out of 78 charge sheet witnesses cited in the present case, till date only 22 charge sheet witnesses have been examined as PW1 to PW22. It is not in dispute that all the material charge sheet witnesses including injured eye witnesses have been already examined before the Trial Court as on this date. 8. Out of 78 charge sheet witnesses cited in the present case, till date only 22 charge sheet witnesses have been examined as PW1 to PW22. It is not in dispute that all the material charge sheet witnesses including injured eye witnesses have been already examined before the Trial Court as on this date. Accused No.1 was granted regular bail by this Court in Crl.P.No.12761/2024. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court thereafter had granted regular bail to accused No.6 in Crl.P.No.7507/2025. This Court has granted regular bail to accused Nos.9 and 10 in Crl.P.No.13709/2024 disposed of on 05.06.2024. Undisputedly, petitioner herein has no other criminal antecedents and he is in custody for the last more than five years. Since accused Nos.6, 9 and 10 as against whom similar allegations are found in the charge sheet have already been granted regular bail, the petitioner is also entitled for similar relief on the ground of parity. 9. In addition to the same, the material on record would go to show that out of the 78 charge sheet witnesses cited in the present case, till date only 22 charge sheet witnesses have been examined. 10. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Javed Gulam Nabi Shaik Vs Sate of Maharashtra and Another reported in 2024 SCC Online SC 1693 in paragraph No.19 has observed as follows; "19. 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." 11. Since material charge sheet witnesses, including the alleged eye witnesses, have been already examined before the Trial Court, there cannot be any apprehension that petitioner may tamper with the material charge sheet witnesses. Under the circumstances, I am of the view that without expressing any opinion on merits and demerits of the case, the prayer made by the petitioner for grant of regular bail needs to be answered affirmatively considering the period of his incarceration. Accordingly, the following order:- 12. The petition is allowed. Under the circumstances, I am of the view that without expressing any opinion on merits and demerits of the case, the prayer made by the petitioner for grant of regular bail needs to be answered affirmatively considering the period of his incarceration. Accordingly, the following order:- 12. The petition is allowed. The petitioner is directed to be enlarged on bail in S.C.No.47/2021 pending before the Court of VI Addl. District and Sessions Judge, D.K., Mangaluru arising out of Crime No.38/2020 registered by the Mulki Police Station, Mangaluru, for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 114, 109, 120B, 341, 307, 302 read with Section 149 of IPC, subject to the following conditions: a) Petitioner shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with two sureties for the likesum, to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court; b) The petitioner shall appear regularly on all the dates of hearing before the Trial Court unless the Trial Court exempts his appearance for valid reasons; c) The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly threaten or tamper with the prosecution witnesses; d) The petitioner shall not involve in similar offences in future; e) The petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Trial Court without permission of the said Court until the case registered against him is disposed off.