KABC010161312022
IN THE COURT OF LXV ADDL CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS
JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY (CCH-66)
PRESENT
SHRI. HEMANTH KUMAR. C.R ,
B.A.L., L.L.B.,
LXV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru.
Dated this the 21 st day of June, 2022
Crl.Misc.No.6013/2022
PETITIONER/S:-
DEEPAK H.K, @ DEEPU,
s/o Krishnamurthy. N.,
Aged about 32 years,
R/at No.62, 1st Cross,
Devegowda Layout, Audugodi,
Bengaluru-560030. [Accused No.9]
(By Sri. JK., Advocate)
V/s.

RESPONDENT/S:-
STATE OF KARNATAKA,
By Kamakshipalya Police Station,
Bengaluru.
(Rep. by Public Prosecutor)
2
Crl.Misc.No.6013/2022
ORDER ON PETITION FILED UNDER
SECTION 438 OF CR.P.C
This petition is filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C., seeking
anticipatory bail to the petitioner/accused No.9 in Crime No.388/2021
registered by the respondent Kamakshipalya police for offence
punishable under Sections 395, 120(B), 201 of IPC.
2.

Facts of the case.-
One Mr. Koothappan, resident of Arumpatthu Post, Villupuram,
Tamilnadu has lodged complaint alleging that on 26.12.2021 between
5.00 to 8.00 am., the complainant went to supply the chicken around
Laggere and Kamakshipalya chicken centers by using his Eicher
vehicle bearing No.KA-51/B-2540 had collected Rs.5,20,000/- and
kept Rs.1,30,000/- at dash board of the vehicle and remaining amount
was kept below the seat of the driver as well as passenger seat. At
about 10.00 pm., when the complainant came near Summanahalli
bridge, at that time 4 unknown persons suddenly overtook the vehicle
and stopped the swift car in front of the complainant’s vehicle and they
threatened the complainant and assaulted the complainant. Due to
which the complainant sustained bleeding injuries at head, leg and
they also assaulted Ranjith and Rajesh took the amount of
Rs.1,30,000/- from dash board of the vehicle. Hence, the complainant
has lodged the complaint. On receipt of the complaint, the police have
registered the case in Crime No.388/2021 against the unknown
persons for the offences punishable under Sections 397 of IPC later
the police after investigation have filed charge sheet against the
3
Crl.Misc.No.6013/2022
accused persons for the offences punishable under sections 395,
120(B), 201 of IPC.
3.

The petitioner being aggrieved by the same has filed this
petition seeking anticipatory bail on the following among other
grounds. The petitioner submits that there is a delay in lodging the
complaint, either in the complaint or in the FIR the name of the
petitioner is not mentioned, there is no motive and overt act against
from this petitioner. The petitioner counsel has also contended that he
is innocent of the alleged offences and he has got valid and tenable
defense. He has never committed or involved in the alleged crime.
The petitioner has further contended that no recovery has been made
from the present petitioner the respondent police have falsely implicate
the petitioner and they have recovered the articles and cash from other
accused. The petitioner counsel further contended that the petitioner
was arrested in Crime No.13/2022 of Bagalagunte police while he was
in custody in the said crime the respondent police have filed the memo
seeking body warrant to the present case but not seek police custody
it clearly goes to show that the petitioner is not required for custodial
interrogation.

The petitioner further contended that he is ready and
willing to abide by the terms and conditions imposed by this court and
ready to furnish surety to the satisfaction of this court. The petitioner
further contended that the other accused persons are enlarged on bail
hence, the petitioner is entitled for bail on the ground of parity. Hence,
prays to allow the bail petition.

4
4.

Crl.Misc.No.6013/2022
After service of notice, the learned Public Prosecutor has
filed objection contending that the petitioner and other accused are
involved in the alleged crime. The police after investigation have filed
the charge sheet against the petitioner and accused persons for the
offences punishable under Sections 395, 120(B), 201 of IPC.

The
learned Public Prosecutor has also further contended that there is
prima facie material available against the accused persons have
involved in the alleged crime and also further contended that the
offences alleged against the petitioner and other accused are an
offence against the society.

He has further contended that if the
accused is released on bail there is every chances of threatening the
witnesses and may absconding and hampering the trial. Hence, prays
to reject the bail petition.
5.

Heard the arguments. Now the points that arise for my
consideration.-
6.

1.

Whether the petitioner/accused No.9
has made out sufficient ground to allow
the petition filed under Section 438 of
Cr.P.C?

2.

What order?
My answer to the above points are.Point No.1:Ц
In the Negative
Point No.2:Ц
As per final order
for the following
Crl.Misc.No.6013/2022
5
REASONS
7.

Point No.1:-
The counsel for petitioner has contended
that the present petitioner is innocent of the alleged offences, he has
been falsely implicated in the present case by the respondent police
and there is no over tact attributed against this petitioner and the
Respondent police have already recovered articles and cash from
other accused and this petitioner has been falsely implicated in the
present case. The petitioner counsel has also further contended that
the petitioner has no bad antecedents and no case is pending against
the petitioner. The petitioner counsel has also further contended that
the other accused persons are already enlarged on bail hence, the
petitioner is entitled for bail on the ground of parity. Hence, prays to
allow the petition.
8.

The learned Public Prosecutor has addressed the
arguments contending that there is sufficient material against the
petitioner and accused persons for having involved in the alleged
offence. As such the police after investigation have filed the charge
sheet against the accused persons for the offences punishable under
Sections 395, 120(B), 201 of IPC.

The learned Public Prosecutor has
also further contended that the offences alleged against the petitioner
and other accused are an offence against the society and also the
learned Public Prosecutor has further contended that there are number
of cases pending against the present petitioner at various police
stations and also further contended that the petitioner is an habitual
offender. Hence, the learned Public Prosecutor prays to reject the bail
6
petition.

Crl.Misc.No.6013/2022
If the bail is granted to the petitioner might threaten the
prosecution witnesses and abscond and threaten and hamper the trial.
9.

On perusal of the records it is noticed that the allegation
against the petitioner and other accused is that on 26.12.2021 when
the complainant had been to supply the chicken around Laggere and
Kamakshipalya chicken centers by using his Eicher vehicle bearing
No.KA-51/B-2540 had collected Rs.5,20,000/- and kept Rs.1,30,000/at dash board of the vehicle and remaining amount was kept below the
seat of the driver as well as passenger seat. At about 10.00 pm.,
when the complainant came near Summanahalli bridge, at that time 4
unknown persons overtook the vehicle and stopped the swift car in
front of the complainant’s vehicle and they threatened the complainant
and assaulted the complainant and also assaulted other persons and
took away Rs.1,30,000/- from dash board of the vehicle. Initially the
police had registered the case against the unknown persons in Crime
No.388/2021 for the offence punishable under Section 397 of IPC.
The police after conducting the investigation have filed the charge
sheet in CC.No.11907/2022 for the offences punishable under
Sections 395, 120(B), 201 of IPC.

The petitioner has contended that
there is no recovery made at the instance of this petitioner and also
the petitioner has contended that the other accused persons have
been already granted bail as such he is entitled for bail on the ground
of parity.

On perusal of the records it is noticed that the offences
alleged against the petitioner and other accused persons are under
Sections 395, 120(B), 201 of IPC. The alleged offences are an offence
against the society and also on perusal of the objection filed by the
Crl.Misc.No.6013/2022
7
prosecution it is noticed that the accused No.1 has been involved in
various cases and various offences in various police stations. The
petitioner is also involved in Crime No.13/2022 of Bagalagunte police
station as such the petitioner is an habitual offender. The petitioner
being an habitual offender is not entitled for the relief of anticipatory
bail.

If the bail is granted there is every chances of petitioner
absconding and hampering the trial.

Hence, the petition filed by the
petitioner is liable to be dismissed. Hence, I answer the point No.1 in
the Negative.
10.

Point No.2:-
In view of the findings given on point No.1,
I proceed to pass the following:ORDER
The
bail
petitioner/accused
petition
No.9
filed
under
by
Section
the
438
Cr.P.C., is dismissed.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and then pronounced by
me in the Open Court on this 21st day of June, 2022)
(HEMANTH KUMAR. C.R)
LXV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru.