KABC010219712023
IN THE COURT OF THE LII ADDL. CITY CIVIL &
SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE (CCH-53)
Dated this the 22nd day of August, 2023
PRESENT
Sri.B.G.Pramoda, B.A.L., LL.B.,
LII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bangalore.
Crl.Misc.No. 7950 /2023
Petitioner
Deepak,
S/o Mahesh,
Aged about 20 years,
R/at No.902, 1st Main,
Kempegowda Arch Road,
Laggere,
Bengaluru.
(Accused No.2 in judicial custody)
(By Sri. T.Sateesha., Advocate)
-V/S-
Respondent :
State of Karnataka by
Peenya police station,
Bangalore.
(Represented
Prosecutor)
by
learned
Public
2
Crl.Misc.No.7950/2023
ORDER
This petition is filed by the petitioner u/Sec.439 of
Cr.P.C., praying to enlarge him on bail in Crime No.221/2023 of
Peenya police station for the offence punishable u/Sec.397 of
IPC, pending on the file of learned 31 st ACMM Court,
Bengaluru.
2.

It is stated in the petition that the respondent
police have registered a case in Cr.No.221/2023 against
unknown persons alleging the offence punishable u/Sec.397
of IPC. The respondent police during the course of
investigation of the case have arrested the petitioner on
08.08.2023 and produced him before the learned Magistrate.
The petitioner was remanded to judicial custody by Learned
Magistrate. It is further stated in the petition that the petitioner
is innocent and he has not committed the alleged offence. The
respondent police have falsely implicated the petitioner in the
aforesaid crime number. He is permanent resident of address
mentioned in the cause title.

The petitioner is only bread
earning number of the family and is having old aged parents
and their depending upon him.

The petitioner is ready to
abide by any terms and conditions imposed by this court for
his enlargement on bail and he is ready to furnish suitable
surety for his appearance before the court. Hence, the
petitioner has prayed to allow their petition.

3
Crl.Misc.No.7950/2023
3.

The
learned
Public
Prosecutor
has
filed
objections to the bail application filed by the petitioner along
with I.O. report by opposing the grant of bail to the petitioner
by contending that the offence alleged to have been
committed by the petitioner are grave in nature and against to
the society.

It is further stated in the objection that the
accused No.2 is habitual offender and he is involved in many
other offences of similar nature. The petitioner is not the
permanent resident of Bengaluru. It is further stated in the
objection that the case is still at the investigation stage. If the
petitioner is enlarged on bail, he may commit the offence of
similar nature in future. The petitioner will abscond and he
may not appear before Investigating Officer and before the
court. It is further stated in the objection that if the petitioner is
enlarged on bail he may try to destroy the evidence and he
may threaten the informant and other prosecution witnesses.
Hence, the Learned Public Prosecutor has prayed to reject
the petition filed by the petitioner.
4. Heard the arguments of Learned Public Prosecutor
and Learned counsel for the petitioner. Perused the petition,
objection and other materials on record.
5. Having done so, the following points will arise for my
consideration:
4
Crl.Misc.No.7950/2023
(1) Whether the bail petition filed by the
petitioner u/s.439 of Cr.P.C., is
deserves to be allowed?
(2) What order?
6. My findings on the above points are as under:
(1) Point No.1
..

In the Affirmative
(2) Point No.2
..

As per final order
for the following:
REASONS
7. Point No.1:- The respondent police have registered
case in Crime No.221/2023 of Peenya police station against
unknown
persons
by
alleging
the
offence
punishable
u/Sec.397 of IPC on the basis of the information given by
Ramesh Kumar C.S. The respondent police during the course
of investigation of the case have arrested the petitioner and
produced him before the learned Magistrate on 08.08.2023.
The learned magistrate remanded the petitioner to judicial
custody. The petitioner is shown as accused No.2 in the
remand application. Now, the petitioner is in judicial custody
and as such, he has filed the present petition praying to
enlarge him on bail by contending that he is innocent and he
has not committed any offence as alleged against him and he
has been falsely implicated by the respondent police in the
aforesaid crime number. The petitioner has produced the
certified copy of complaint, FIR and remand application.

5
Crl.Misc.No.7950/2023
8.

It is alleged in the FIR that on 25.06.2023, at
about 1.30 a.m., when the informant was raiding the TVS
towards N.T.T.F., the accused have came in the auto-rickshaw
in one way and stop the informant and asked the informant to
give money and phone. When the informant has refused to
give the same, the accused have assaulted the informant with
iron rod and robbed one plus mobile phone from the informant
and ran away from the place.
9.

The name of the petitioner is not mentioned either
in the FIR or in the complaint. The present petitioner is shown
as accused No.2 in the remand application. In the I.O. report,
it is mentioned that the mahazar of place of the incident was
conducted. The auto-rickshaw, iron rod and one knife alleged
to have been used for commission of the offence were also
seized by the police by conducting mahazar as per the say of
accused No.1 and 2. The statement of the informant was also
recorded by showing the accused. It is also mentioned in the
I.O. report that the accused were produced before the
magistrate as they are not required for further investigation of
the case. It is also mentioned in the I.O report that the
petitioner was taken to police custody from 09.08.2023 to
17.08.2023. Hence, custodial interrogation of the petitioner is
not required for further investigation of the case. Whether the
petitioner along with other accused have committed the
6
Crl.Misc.No.7950/2023
alleged offence on the informant or not has to be adjudicated
only after full-fledged trial. The offence alleged against the
petitioner is not exclusively punishable with death or
imprisonment for life.
10.

The
Hon’ble
Supreme
Court
of
India
in
Balachandh @ Baliya (AIR 1977 SC 2447) and in many
cases has held that has laid down the legal doctrine that Уbail
is a rule and jail is an exceptionФ. This legal doctrine is laid
down for safe guarding a fundamental right under article 21 of
Constitution of India, granting the right to life and liberty. There
are no sufficient exceptional reasons to keep the petitioner in
judicial custody by rejecting his bail application. The petitioner
is in judicial custody since from the date of his arrest.
11.
terms
and
Further, the petitioner is ready to abide by any
conditions
imposed
by
the
court
for
his
enlargement on bail. He is also ready to furnish surety to the
satisfaction of the court for his appearance before the
Investigating Officer. He is also ready to co-operate with the
investigation of the case. The petitioner is the permanent
resident of the Bengaluru and he is residing within the
jurisdiction of this court and within the jurisdiction of learned
magistrate. As such, there is no chances of petitioner
absconding or fleeing from justice. The presence of the
7
Crl.Misc.No.7950/2023
petitioner during the course of investigation of the case can be
secured by imposing suitable conditions. Further the accused
No.4 against whom similar offences are alleged was already
granted bail by this court in Crl.Misc.No.7795/2023. The
apprehension
absconding
of
of
Learned
the
Public
petitioner
and
Prosecutor
regarding
regarding
petitioner
threatening the prosecution witnesses and destroying the
evidence can be make good by imposing suitable terms and
conditions. Under these facts and circumstances, I am of the
opinion that the bail application filed by the petitioner can be
allowed and petitioner can be enlarged on bail by imposing
suitable terms and conditions. Accordingly, I answer point
No.1 in the Affirmative.
12. Point No.2:- In view of my findings on point No.1, I
proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
The petition filed by the petitioner/Accused No.2
u/s.439 of Cr.P.C., is hereby allowed.
The petitioner/Accused No.2 is enlarged on bail in
Crime No.221/2023 of Peenya police station for the
offence punishable u/Sec.397 of IPC, pending on the file
of learned 31st ACMM Court, Bangalore, on petitioner
furnishing personal bond for Rs.1,00,000/- and one surety
for like sum to the satisfaction of the Learned Magistrate
with the following further conditions:
8
Crl.Misc.No.7950/2023
CONDITIONS
(1) The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating
Officer as and when called for during the course of
investigation of the case and he shall co-operate with the
investigation of the case.
(2) The petitioner shall appear before the court regularly on
all hearing dates during the trial of the case.
(3) The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any
inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted
with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from
disclosing such facts to the court or any police officer or
any hamper with the evidence.
(4) The petitioner shall not commit offence of similar in nature
or any other offence in future.
(5) The petitioner shall furnish his correct address proof
before the trial court.
(6) The petitioner shall not leave India without previous
permission of the court.
(7) Violation of any of the aforesaid conditions would entitle
for cancellation of bail of the petitioner.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, directly on computer, corrected and then
pronounced by me in the open court on this the 22 nd day of August,
2023).
PRAMODA
BG
Digitally signed by
PRAMODA B G
Date: 2023.08.24
10:21:19 +0530
(B.G.Pramoda)
LII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bangalore.

9
Crl.Misc.No.7950/2023
10
Crl.Misc.No.7950/2023
11
Crl.Misc.No.7950/2023