KABC010015992023
IN THE COURT OF THE LXX ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL &
SESSIONS JUDGE, SPECIAL JUDGE BENGALURU(CCH-71)
Dated this the 03rd day of February, 2023.
Present;
SRI. PRAKASH.V., B.A(L)., LL.B.
LXX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge
and Special Judge, Bengaluru.
Crl. Misc. No.509/2023
PETITIONER:
Sri.Govindaraju @ Govinda
S/o Venkatesh,
Aged about 25 years,
R/at No.218, Ambedkar 1st Cross,
Near Ganesh Temple, Chikkajala,
Bangalore.
(Rep.by Sri.B.R, Advocate).
-V/S-
RESPONDENTS: 1. State of Karnataka
By Cubbon Park Station
Bangalore.
2. Bheemasena Ghatage,
Police officer,
Aged about 46 years,
Cubbon Park Police Station,
K.B.Road, Bangalore-560 001.
(Rep. by Special Public Prosecutor)
ORDER
The Petitioner/accused No.10 has filed this petition
under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., seeking for his
2
Crl.Misc.No.509/2023
enlargement
on
bail
in
Crime
No.138/2022
registered by the respondent Police for the offences
punishable under Sections 302, 201, 343, 364, 307,
504, 506 r/w 149 of IPC and Section 3(2)(v), (3)(1)
(e) of The Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

2.

In the petition it is stated that, the petitioner is
innocent of the alleged offence and he has been
falsely implicated in the above case. There is no iota
of evidence against the petitioner. The 2 nd petitioner
is
a
police
officer
and
has
lodged
suomoto
complaint and has not made any enquiry as to who
lodged unnamed complaint. The name of the
petitioner is not in the FIR or in the complaint. There
is no direct or indirect allegations made against the
petitioner and there is no prima facie case against
the petitioner. There is no specific overt act made
out against the petitioner. The ingredients of the
complaint does not attract the offences of SC/ST
Act. There is no eye witnesses, no incriminating
evidence or materials to support the allegations of
3
Crl.Misc.No.509/2023
the prosecution and also no materials has been
seized from the hands of the petitioner during the
investigation. The complainant police have falsely
fixed
the
petitioner
based
on
the
voluntary
statement of co-accused. The petitioner is not at all
required for any investigation. There is no material
to attracts SC/ST Act or alleged offences. The
complainant is not eye witness and only a hear say
witness and same is not admissible. The respondent
police have almost completed investigation and the
presence of the petitioner is not required and the
petitioner is in judicial custody since 28.12.2022.
The petitioner is having age old parents and
pregnant wife and depending on the petitioner. The
petitioner is residing in the address mentioned in
the cause title since several years. The entire
averments made in the FIR does not constitute an
offence
which
is
exclusively
punishable
for
imprisonment for life or death. The petitioner
undertakes that he will not flee away from justice,
not to tamper the witnesses and to be regular
4
Crl.Misc.No.509/2023
before the Court on all the dates of hearing. The
petitioner is ready and willing to abide by conditions
to be imposed by this Court and to offer acceptable
surety for his appearance.

3.

After institution of this petition, the notice is ordered
to be issued to the father of deceased, who inturn
appeared before the Court and has been duly
represented by learned Special Public Prosecutor.

4.

As against the above petition, the learned Special
Public
Prosecutor
has
filed
detailed
objection
opposing the petition on various grounds and
reiterated averments of complaint and contended
that the case is under investigation which prima
facie case is makes out. If the petitioner is released,
he
may
threaten
the
complainant
and
other
witnesses, may tamper with the evidence, commit
similar offences and may abscond permanently.
Thus sought for rejection of petition.

5.

Heard the arguments of both sides and perused the
records.

5
Crl.Misc.No.509/2023
6.

The following points arise for my consideration;
POINTS
1. Whether the petitioner is
entitled for bail under Section
439 of Cr.P.C., ?
2. What Order?

7.

My answers to the above points are ;
Point No.1:
In the Negative,
Point No.2: As per final order
for the following;
REASONS
8.

POINT No.1: The materials placed on record would
go to show that PI of Cubbon Park Police station has
registered this case against the accused for the
alleged offence under Sections 343, 307, 364, 504,
506 r/w 149 of IPC., on the basis of complaint
lodged by PSI of Cubbon Park Police Station. The
gist of the prosecution case is that on 22.12.2022
the ACP of Cubbon Park Sub-Division had received
anonymous complaint with pendrive which was
registered
under
application
No.Q1PS/PET/GNL-
249/2022 who inturn forward the said complaint to
PI of Cubbon Park Police Station to ascertain the
6
Crl.Misc.No.509/2023
truthfulness of complaint. Accordingly, the PSI of
Cubbon Park Police Station after ascertaining the
truth had lodged complaint stating that ‘deceased
Sharath Kumar being the resident of Konanakunte
village had borrowed loan from various persons and
failed to repay the same. Accordingly, the persons
who gave the loan to the deceased Sharath Kumar
entrusted the work of recovery of loan with accused
No.3 who inturn entrusted the recovery to accused
No.1, 2, 5 and 8. The accused No.1,2,5 and 8 have
kidnapped the deceased Sharathkumar in the car
belongs to accused No.10 with the assistance of
accused No.4 and 6 and he was abducted
in the
Farm house belongs to accused No.8 for 6-7 days
and brutally assaulted him and caused death.
Thereafter, the accused persons shifted the dead
body of deceased in the car belongs to accused
No.9 with the help of accused No.4 and 7 and
thrown the dead body in Charmadi Ghat with an
intention to cause disappearance of evidence.

7
Crl.Misc.No.509/2023
9.

The learned counsel for petitioner would argued
that, this petitioner has not at all committed
alleged offences and he is innocent of the alleged
offence and no prima facie case is made out to
attract the offence alleged against the petitioner.
Prays to allow the bail petition.
10.

The learned Public Prosecutor has argued that the
involvement of the petitioner herein is established
in the complaint. If he released may threaten the
complainant
and
other
witnesses,
tamper
the
evidence. Hence, prima facie case is made out
against the petitioner. Hence, petition does not
deserve to allow.

11.

With the rival contentions urged by the both sides,
it is just and necessary to go through the materials
available on record. Before going into the discussion
on the other aspect of the matter, it is just and
proper to go through the principles to be borne in
mind while considering the petition for bail. It is well
8
Crl.Misc.No.509/2023
settled that matters to be considered in an petition
for bail are;
“(i)
Whether there is any prima facie
or reasonable ground to believe
that the accused had committed
the offence;
(ii)
nature and gravity of the charge;
(iii)
severity of the punishment in the
event of conviction;
(iv)
danger
of
the
accused
absconding or fleeing, if released
on bail;
(v)
character, behaviour, means,
position and standing of the
accused;
(vi)
likelihood of the offence being
repeated;
(vii) reasonable apprehension of the
witnesses being tampered with;
and,
(viii) Danger, of course, of justice
being thwarted by grant of bail.

12.

By keeping in mind the above principles, the instant
petition filed by the petitioner is to be considered. I
have carefully gone through the averments of
complaint and prosecution case papers, wherein it
is discloses that there is a specific overt act against
9
Crl.Misc.No.509/2023
this petitioner stating that this petitioner said to
have kidnapped the deceased for the first in his car
and assaulted the deceased along with accused
No.1 when the deceased was wrongfully confined in
the Farm house. There is a prima facie material
before this Court to believe that the petitioner has
involved
in
punishment
the
for
commission
alleged
of
offence
offence.
is
The
death
or
imprisonment for life in the event of conviction.

13.

In the petition, the petitioner has sought for his
enlargement on bail on various grounds which
touches the merits of the case and said contentions
cannot
be
considered
at
this
stage
of
the
proceeding for a simple reason that, when the
application is filed u/sec.439 of Cr.P.C., the limited
jurisdiction that Court could consider is whether the
party can tamper with witnesses and documents
and also whether there is a prima facie case on the
basis
of
materials
available
on
record.

It
is
impermissible for this court to consider the merits of
the case.

10
Crl.Misc.No.509/2023
14.

Under these circumstances, looking into the gravity
of the offence, at this stage it may not be
appropriate to release him on bail. If the petitioner
is released, their presence cannot be secured for
the trial as he may abscond, tamper the prosecution
witnesses and also may pose life threats to the
complainant and witnesses, may commit similar
offences. The apprehension of prosecution are well
founded.

Apart
from
the
matter
still
under
investigation. Hence, I have no hurdles to hold that
no exceptional grounds are made out for grant of
bail. Accordingly, Point No.1 is answered in the
‘Negative’.

15.

Point No.2:- In view of my findings on Point No.1, I
proceed to pass the following;
ORDER
The Petition filed by the
petitioners under Section 439 of
Cr.P.C., is hereby rejected.
(Typed my dictation directly in computer by the Stenographer, corrected, signed
and then pronounced in open court on this the 03 rd day of February, 2023).

(PRAKASH.V)
LXX Addl. City Civil and Sessions
Judge and Special Judge, Bengaluru.