KABC010160322022
IN THE COURT OF THE LX ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS
JUDGE, BENGALURU (CCH 61)
:Present :
Sri Narashimsa.M.V., B.Com., LL.B.,
LX Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru.
Dated: This the 24th day of June, 2022
: Crl.Misc.No. 5971/2022:
PETITIONER:-
Ameer Ahmed @ Ameer
S/o Muneer Ahmed Khan
Aged about 30 years
R/at No.14, 3rd Floor, 20th cross
14th Main Road, Mahadeshwaranagar
BTM 2nd Stage
Bangalore.
(By Sri. Muzammil Pasha, Adv)
V/s
RESPONDENT :
The State of Karnataka
By: Suddaguntepalya Police Station,
Bengaluru.
(Rep. by: Public Prosecutor)
2
Crl.Misc.No.5971/2022
ORDER
Accused No.2 in Suddaguntepalya Police Station Crime No.
110/2022 has filed bail application under Sec. 439 of Cr.P.C for grant
of regular bail. Accused No.1 and 2 are in JC since 26.4.2022, they
are alleged to have committed offences
punishable under
Sec.341,307,504 r/w Sec.34 of IPC.
2. Brief facts of the case as forthcoming from the first
information is as under :
First informant is one Apsar Husain. He is brother in law of A1. On 24.4.2022 at around 10.20 p.m. in their area at Biryani Street
Gurupanpalya, Bengaluru, while returning from the masjid, the
accused no.1 and 2 came upto him on a
bike, restricted his
movement, hurled abusive words against him, questioned the first
informant as to why he is interfering in the internal matter of A-1 and
his wife. Accused No.1 attacked him with knife on lower neck and
accused No.2 also threatened him.

Hence the complaint was
lodged.
3. Accused No.2 has urged the following grounds :
3
Crl.Misc.No.5971/2022
Accused No.2 is innocent, he is not connected with the case,
accused No.2 has not supported nor participated in the commission
of offence by accused No.1, accused No.2 is formal friend of
accused No.1, offence against accused No.2 is not punishable with
life or death imprisonment. Allegations against accused No.2 are
vague, accused No.2 is the sole bread earner of his family, aged
parents to look after, will abide by the conditions that may be
imposed by this Court, he is not an habitual offender. For no fault
accused No.2 is in custody, accused No.2 will furnish surety. Hence
prayed for enlargement on bail.
4. Learned PP filed objections reiterating the averments made
in
first information.

In objections it is stated that if accused is
enlarged on bail, he will threaten the witness, destruct the evidence
collected against him, accused has committed heinous offence.
Along with objections detailed instructions given by I.O. is also
enclosed. Hence prayed for rejection of bail application.
5. Heard the learned Advocate for petitioner and the learned
Public Prosecutor.
6. The point that arise for consideration is :
4
Crl.Misc.No.5971/2022
(1) Whether bail application filed by accused
No.2. Suddaguntepalya Police Station Crime
No. 110/2022 deserves to be allowed ?
7. My finding to the above point is in the Negative, for the
following :REASONS
8. Point No.1: Perusal of the first information discloses that
the incident took place on 24.4.2022 at about 10.20 p.m. when the
first informant was returning from masjid after offering prayers. It is
clearly stated that accused No.1 is the brother-in-law of victim and
accused No.2 is
friend of accused No.1.

Allegations against
accused No.2 is that when the incident took place, accused No.2
asked accused No.1 not to leave the victim but to stab and kill the
victim.

It clearly transpires that accused No.2 has instigated
commission of offence by accused No.1. It is to be noted that no
attempt was made by accused No.2 to prevent the injuries caused
by A-1, to first informant. First information also discloses that injury
to first informant was caused by using an iron knife.
9. Perusal of the instructions by I.O. discloses that accused
No.1 and 2 are rowdy sheeter, proceedings against them have been
initiated.

It is also forthcoming that against accused No.2 in
5
Crl.Misc.No.5971/2022
Suddaguntepalya P.S. Crime No. 196/2020 has been registered for
the offence under Sec. 20 B and 27B of NDPS Act and Sec. 506,
143 and 149 of IPC. Memo of instructions further discloses that
accused No.2 is absconding and non-bailable warrant was issued
against him in those cases. Accused No.2 has urged that he is not
an habitual offender, but said averment is falsified by the information
disclosed by the I.O.

10. It is to be noted that first informant and accused No.2 are
residing in the same locality, the incident is afresh in the mind of
victim. Taking into account that accused No.2 is a rowdy sheeter,
possibility of he threatening the victim, witnesses by taking aid and
help from other rowdy element of the locality cannot be ruled out.
There would even be possibility of clashes between two groups.
Considering the nature of offence, manner in which it has been
committed, due to suppression of material facts as well, no grounds
are made out by accused No.2 to enlarge him on bail. Hence, I
answer the above point in the Negative and proceed to pass the
following :
6
Crl.Misc.No.5971/2022
ORDER
Bail application filed by accused No.2 in
Suddaguntepalya P.S. Crime No.110/2022 under Sec.
439 of Cr.P.C. is hereby rejected.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and typed by him, after corrections,
pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the 24 th day of June, 2022)
(NARASHIMSA.M.V.)
LX Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru