KABC010264302023
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 13 th day of October, 2023
Crl.Misc.No.9604/2023
PETITIONER/S:-
DEEPU .R @ KULLA DEEPU,
s/o late K.Raju,
Aged about 20 years,
R/at C/o Lakappa,
Near Ganesha Temple,
Railway Gate Main Road,
Opp. Thirumala Clinic,
Nayandanahalli, Mysore road,
Bengaluru. [Accused No.1]
Bengaluru
(By Sri. GS., Advocate)
V/s.
RESPONDENT/S:-
STATE OF KARNATAKA,
By Chandralayout Police Station,
Bengaluru.
(Rep. by Public Prosecutor)
2
Crl.Misc.No.9604/2023
ORDER ON PETITION FILED UNDER
SECTION 439 OF CR.P.C
This petition is filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., praying to
enlarge the petitioner/ accused No.1 on bail in Crime No.376/2012
(SC.No.404/2014) registered by the respondent Chandralayout
police for the offence punishable under Section 307 r/w Section 34 of
IPC.
2.

Brief facts of the case.-
The complainant has lodged the complaint alleging that on
03.10.2012 night at about 9.00 pm., when the complainant was on
the way to return the two wheeler to his friend near Kalikamba
temple, the accused No.1 along with his friend came ahead and
started asking about
Ranjith and asked to show him, but the
complainant said he don’t know, thereafter he was took him to N.S.
Ground where the accused persons assaulted him with deadly
weapons. As such the complainant has lodged the complaint. The
police on receipt of the said complaint have registered the case in
Crime No.376/2012 for the offences punishable under Section 307
r/w Section 34 of IPC.

After completion of the investigation the
charge sheet has been filed and the case has been committed to this
court in SC.No.404/2014. Initially the petitioner was enlarged on bail
and subsequently he remained absent continuously to the court and
this court issued NBW against the accused.
3.

The petitioner being aggrieved by the same, has
preferred this bail petition on the following among other grounds.
The petitioner submits that he is innocent of the alleged offences and
he has no knowledge of alleged offences but he has been falsely
Crl.Misc.No.9604/2023
3
implicated in the above case at the instance of the complainant. The
petitioner submits that at no point of time the petitioner has involved
in the alleged crime either directly or indirectly.

The petitioner
submits that he has not committed any alleged offences as alleged
by the complainant and on reading the entire case records there is
no prima facie is made out against the petitioner. The petitioner
submits that he is permanent resident of address mentioned in the
cause title and the offences alleged against the petitioner are not
punishable with imprisonment for life or death and he is ready and
willing to abide by the conditions imposed by this court and also cooperate with the investigation.

Hence,
prays to allow the bail
petition.
4.

After service of notice, the learned Public Prosecutor
has appeared and filed objection contending that the offences
alleged against the petitioner is grievous in nature and has also
further contended that in the present case the investigation has been
completed and there is a prima facie material against the accused
persons and the police have filed the charge sheet against the
accused persons and at this stage if the bail petition of the petitioner
is allowed there is every chances of the petitioner threatening the
prosecution witnesses, destroying the evidence, absconding and
hampering the trial. Hence, prays to reject the bail petition.
5.

Heard the arguments. Now the points that arise for my
consideration.1.

1. Whether the petitioner/accused
No.1 has made out sufficient ground
to allow the petition filed under
Section 439 of Cr.P.C?

4
2.
6.

Crl.Misc.No.9604/2023
What order?
My answer to the above points are.Point No.1:Ц
In the Affirmative
Point No.2:Ц
As per final order
for the following
REASONS
7.

Point No.1:- The petitioner counsel has addressed the
arguments contending that the petitioner is innocent of the alleged
offences and he has not committed any offences. The petitioner
counsel has also further contended that on reading the entire case
records there is no prima facie is made out against the petitioner and
the alleged spot is busy area, such being the case assaulting the
complainant with deadly weapons is an incredible story of the
complainant. The petitioner counsel has also further contended that
the alleged items which are alleged to have been seized from the
possession of the accused person was not at all actually recovered
from the possession of the account and more over except the
complainant there are no eye witnesses to say about the alleged
incident. The petitioner counsel has also further contended that no
such grievous injury has been cause to the injured, but the
complainant has intentionally got admitted to the hospital so as to
make out heinous crime against the petitioner who is absolutely
innocent. The petitioner counsel has also further contended that the
complainant has been completed and the charge sheet has been
filed and the present petitioner is no more required for investigation.
The petitioner
counsel has contended that due to lack of
communication with his earlier counsel the accused unable to know
the status of the case and thus he remained absent before the court
on the hearing dates, the absence of the petitioner before the court
Crl.Misc.No.9604/2023
5
was not intentional but for the said bonafide reason. The petitioner
counsel has also further contended that the petitioner is is ready and
willing to abide by the conditions imposed by this court and also cooperate with the trial. Hence, prays to allow the bail petition.
8.

The
learned
Public
Prosecutor
has
addressed
arguments contending that the offences alleged against the
petitioner is grievous in nature and also further contended that the
complaint averments prima facie shows that the accused persons
have committed the alleged offences. The learned Public Prosecutor
has further contended that in the present case the investigation has
been completed and there is a prima facie material against the
accused persons and the police have filed the charge sheet against
the accused persons and at this stage if the bail petition of the
petitioner is allowed there is every chances of the petitioner
threatening the prosecution witnesses, destroying the evidence,
absconding and hampering the trial. Hence, prays to reject the bail
petition.
9.

On perusal of the records it is noticed that the
complainant has lodged the complaint alleging that on 03.10.2012
night at about 9.00 pm., when the complainant was on the way to
return the two wheeler to his friend near Kalikamba temple, the
accused No.1 along with his friend came ahead and started asking
about Ranjith and asked to show him, but the complainant said he
don’t know, thereafter he was took him to N.S. Ground where the
accused persons assaulted him with deadly weapons. As such the
complainant has lodged the complaint. The police on receipt of the
said complaint have registered the case in Crime No.376/2012 for
the offences punishable under Section 307 r/w Section 34 of IPC.

6
Crl.Misc.No.9604/2023
After completion of the investigation the charge sheet has been filed
and the case has been committed to this court in SC.No.404/2014.
The petitioner
counsel has contended that the petitioner was
enlarged on bail and subsequently the charge sheet has been filed
and the case has been committed to this court in SC.No.404/2014.
That during lockdown on account of COVID-19 the accused lost the
track of the case due to lack of communication with his counsel and
he was moved to his native place and was staying all these days,
recently when he returned back to Bengaluru the respondent police
have arrested him and produced him before the court and then he
has been remanded to judicial custody as such the petitioner has
filed the present bail petition before this court seeking bail. The
petitioner having contended that he is ready and willing to abide by
the conditions imposed by this court and also co-operate with the
trial. In the present case the investigation has been completed and
the charge sheet has been filed, as of now it cannot be said that the
petitioner has committed the alleged offences. The apprehension of
the prosecution is that if the bail petition of the petitioner is allowed
there is every chances of the petitioner threaten the prosecution
witnesses, destroy the evidence, abscond and hamper the trial. On
looking into the facts and circumstances of the case it is just and
proper to provide another opportunity to the accused . The said
apprehension of the prosecution can be satisfied by imposing
stringent conditions. Admittedly, the petitioner is resident of the
address shown in the cause title. If at all during the course of trial,
the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of the petitioner, he can be
dealt with in accordance with law. Considering all these facts, I am of
the opinion that the petitioner can be enlarged on bail by imposing
Crl.Misc.No.9604/2023
7
certain
conditions,
which
would
meet
the
apprehension
of
prosecution. Accordingly, I answer the point No.1 in the ‘Affirmative’.
10.

Point No.2:-
In view of the findings given on point
No.1, I proceed to pass the following.ORDER
The
petition
filed
by
the
petitioner/accused No.1 under Section 439
Cr.P.C., is allowed.
The
petitioner/accused
No.1
is
ordered to be released on bail in Crime
No.376/2012 (SC.No.404/2014) registered
for the offence punishable under Section
307 r/w Section 34 of IPC, on execution of
personal bond for Rs.1,00,000/- with one
surety for the likesum subject to the
following
CONDITIONS:1.

The petitioner shall appear before the court
on all the dates of hearing.

2.

The petitioner shall appear before the I.O
whenever he is called upon for the purpose
of further investigation.

3.

The petitioner shall not involve in any
criminal activities.

4.

The petitioner shall not tamper with the
evidence and shall not threaten, induce
Crl.Misc.No.9604/2023
8
allure the prosecution
whatsoever manner.

witnesses
in
5.

The petitioner shall not leave the
jurisdiction of the court without prior
permission of the court.

6.

The petitioner to produce
address proof document.

permanent
(Directly dictated to the stenographer online computer, typed by her, corrected
and then pronounced by me in the Open Court on this 13th day of October, 2022)
(HEMANTH KUMAR. C.R)
LXV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru.