KABC010224202023
IN THE COURT OF THE LXIII ADDL.CITY CIVIL &
SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH-64) AT BENGALURU
Dated this the 25th day of September 2023
: PRESENT :
Sri.A.V.Patil, B.Com., LL.B.,
LXIII ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS
JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY.
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS NO.8137/2023
PETITIONER :
Dandapani
S/o Late.Kannan,
Aged about 43 years,
Residing at G.D.Puram Slum,
Bannerghatta Road, Bengaluru.
(Accused No.2)
(By Sri.Kumara R.S. Gowda,
Advocate)
– Vs –
RESPONDENT :
State by MICO Layout Police
Station, Bengaluru.
(By Public Prosecutor)
ORDER
2
Crl.Misc.No.8137/2023
The petitioner/accused No.2 has filed this petition
u/s 439 of Cr.P.C., for grant of bail in SC No.833/2014
(Crime
No.480/2008)
registered
for
the
offences
punishable u/s 302, 201, 120(B) r/w Sec.34 of IPC.
2.

It is stated in the bail application that he is a law
abiding citizen. The petitioner do not know the accused
No.1 or other co-accused persons and deceased. There
was no any galata or quarrel took-place between the
deceased and the petitioner at any point of time with
regard to any matter. There was no previous ill-will or
motive with the deceased for the commission of the
offences.

At no point of time the petitioner had
assaulted the deceased with his hands in collusion with
the other accused persons. The petitioner is no way
responsible for the cause of death of the deceased. The
complainant
has
stated
that
he
had
received
information from the informant about committing of
dacoity and he was arrested by J.P.Nagara Police and a
case came to be registered in Cr.No.478/2008 for the
offences
u/s
399,
402
of
IPC.

Later,
took-up
investigation and came to know about the murder of the
deceased by the accused persons and later the place of
incident was dug and found the skull, bones, skeleton
of the deceased along with clothes and implicated the
3
Crl.Misc.No.8137/2023
petitioner in the instant case, for which the petitioner
was no way related to the said crime. At no point of
time the petitioner has received any money from the
other accused persons nor the petitioner advised to
leave the place and there should be no suspect about
the murder of the deceased. The complainant/Police
only on the basis of body warrant, implicated the
petitioner in the present case. There is no eye-witness
to show that the petitioner is guilty of the offences.
Accused No.1 has played the major role in the said
crime. The accused No.1, 4 and 5 have been already
enlarged on bail, wherein the accused No.1 has been
already acquitted in SC No.500/2009 and hence the
petitioner is entitled for bail. Earlier the petitioner was
already enlarged on bail in SC No.500/2009, thereafter
due to lack of knowledge and also he was unable to
contact his previous Counsel to know the status of the
case and moreover the petitioner was under home
quarantine for Covid-19, as such he was unable to
appear before the Court in SC No.500/2009. Since the
petitioner was not regularly appearing before the Court,
the case has been split-up and split-up case is
registered in SC No.833/2014.

In the meantime, the
Court has issued proclamation and NBW against the
4
Crl.Misc.No.8137/2023
petitioner. Based on the NBW issued by the Court, the
respondent/Police have arrested the petitioner and he
was remanded to judicial custody. The petitioner is in
judicial custody since 06.01.2023 for no fault of him.
The petitioner is the sole earning member of his family
having wife and children. He is ready to obey the terms
and conditions imposed by this Court. Hence, prayed to
grant bail.
3.

The learned P.P. has opposed the bail application
by filing the objections statement. According to him, IO
after due investigation found that petitioners have
committed the offences. Accused jumped the bail
conditions and issued proclamation. When the case
was posted for recording evidence u/s 299 of Cr.P.C. the
presence of petitioner is secured by executing the NBW.
The offences alleged against the accused are heinous in
nature and are punishable with death or imprisonment
for life. Among other grounds prayed to dismiss the bail
application filed by the petitioner.
4.

The learned Counsel for the petitioner has filed
Memo along with the following citations;
1. (1980)2
Supreme
Court
Cases
565
(Sri.Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia and others Vs. State
of Punjab)
5
Crl.Misc.No.8137/2023
2. (2004)7 Supreme Court Cases (State of
Maharashtra Vs. Sitaram Popat Vetal and
another)
3. (2021)2 Supreme Court Cases 427 (Arnab
Manoranjan Goswami Vs. State of Maharashtra)
4. Crl.Apl.No.1981 of 2022 (Amy Mehta Vs. State of
Karnataka and another)
5. (2020)13
Supreme
(P.Chidambaram
Vs.
Investigation)
5.

Court
Cases
337
Central
Bureau
of
The learned Public Prosecutor has filed Memo
along
with
the
copy
of
orders
in
Crl.Petition
No.1653/2022 dated 24.03.2022 (Nanjappa Vs. State of
Chikkajala Police Station, Bengaluru)
6.

Heard the arguments from learned Counsel for
petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the
materials placed on record.
7.

The points that arise for my consideration are:
1. Whether the petitioner is entitled for bail as
prayed in the application filed under
Sec.439 of Cr.P.C.?
2. What order?

8.

My answer to the above points are as follows:
Point No.1: in the negative;
Point No.2: As per final order for the following;
6
Crl.Misc.No.8137/2023
REASONS
9.

Point No.1:-
As per the prosecution case, the
deceased Ganesh borrowed loan from accused No.1 by
assuring that he would marry the sister of accused
No.1. Later, he did not marry the sister of accused No.1
and failed to return the loan amount.

The deceased
Ganesh was abusing and causing damage to the
prestige of the accused No.1. With that enmity, on
29.09.2008 in the mid-night, the accused taken the
deceased Ganesh to the House No.1054, which was
under construction and the present petitioner and
accused No.2 assaulted him and made him to fall down,
thereafter accused No.1 tied the rope around the neck
of the deceased, strangulated and killed him and in
order to destroy the evidence of committing an offence,
they dug the pit inside the house and after putting the
dead body of the deceased, covered with cement and
given the said house on rented basis to others.

This
fact ascertained by the Police during the investigation of
the case registered against the present petitioner and
others in J.P.Nagara Police Station Crime No.480/2008.
Accordingly, he filed the complaint. On the basis of the
complaint, FIR was registered against the unknown
persons.

After the investigation, Investigating Officer
7
Crl.Misc.No.8137/2023
has filed the charge-sheet for the offences punishable
u/s 302, 201, 120(B) r/w Sec.34 of IPC.
10. I have gone through the citations produced by the
learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Public
Prosecutor and kept in mind the views taken in the said
citations while coming to the final conclusion.
11. The learned Counsel for the petitioner argued that
the petitioner has not committed any offences as alleged
by the prosecution. He is innocent and is looking after
the family members. No prima-facie material available
against the petitioner. The accused No.1, 4 and 5 have
been already enlarged on bail. The accused No.1 has
been already acquitted in SC No.500/2009.

On the
ground of parity the petitioner is entitled for bail.
Therefore, prayed to enlarge the petitioner on bail.
12. Per
contra,
the
learned
Public
Prosecutor
vehemently argued that the allegations made in the
complaint and the materials collected during the course
of investigation, filed the charge sheet against the
petitioner and others for committing the murder of
deceased. The offences alleged against the petitioner are
punishable with death or life imprisonment. According
to him, the petitioner has committed heinous and
8
Crl.Misc.No.8137/2023
jumped the bail bond conditions and his presence was
secured by executing NBW while the case posted for
recording the evidence u/s 299 of Cr.P.C. If the accused
is enlarged on bail it will difficult to secure his
presence.

The bail application filed by the petitioner
earlier has been dismissed and petitioner has not
disclosed the said fact. Therefore, he is not entitled for
bail. Hence, prayed to reject the bail application.
13. The
material
on
record
discloses
that
the
petitioner was enlarged on bail in SC No.500/2009 and
on the basis of said bail order petitioner was released.
Petitioner has produced the certified copy of the order
sheet of the split-up case in SC No.833/2014. As per
the said order sheet, after release on the bail, petitioner
fails to appear and the case was ordered to split up
against the petitioner. After split up the case the
proclamation and NBW issued against the petitioner
and ultimately the presence of the petitioner was
secured by executing NBW on 06.01.2023 when the
matter was posted for recording the evidence u/s 299 of
Cr.P.C. Since then, he is in custody. After his arrest the
petitioner
has filed
in
Crl.Mis.No.979/2023. After
hearing, the said bail application was rejected on
9
Crl.Misc.No.8137/2023
merits. The petitioner has not disclosed the rejection of
bail application filed in Crl.Mis.No.979/2023. The said
rejection order is not challenged by the petitioner before
the HonТble High Court of Karnataka. There are no
changed circumstances to grant bail to the petitioner.
The offences alleged against the accused are u/s 302 of
IPC and other offences which are punishable with
capital punishment. As noted supra the petitioner
jumped the bail conditions and his presence was
secured after a long gap that too after issuance of
proclamation by executing the NBW. The Crime alleged
to have committed in the year 2008. If the petitioner is
enlarged on bail, he may abscond and the proceeding of
Criminal case may hamper. The bail granted to the
petitioner has been misused and violated the bail bond
conditions. Since the bail bold executed by
the
petitioner is forfeited and the Cri.Misc.No.4458/2014 is
registered. The petitioner also not paid the bail bond
amount. Having regards to the facts and circumstances
of the case, nature and gravity of the accusation,
severity of punishment, in the event of conviction, it is
not safe to grant bail to the petitioner. Hence, it is not
fit case to exercise the discretion in favor of petitioners.
For the fore going reasons, I answer this point in the
10
Crl.Misc.No.8137/2023
negative.
14. Point No.2:- In view of my findings on point No.1,
I proceed to pass the following;
ORDER
The
regular
bail
petition
filed
by
petitioner/Dandapani u/s 439 of Cr.P.C. is
hereby rejected.
(Typed by the Judgment Writer directly on computer on my
dictation, taken print out and after correction pronounced by me
in open Court on this the 25th day of September 2023)
(A.V.PATIL)
LXIII ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS
JUDGE (CCH-64), BENGALURU CITY.