KABC010290202022
Presented on
Registered on
Decided on
Duration
: 31-10-2022
: 31-10-2022
: 08-11-2022
: 0 years, 0 months,
8 days
BEFORE THE LXVI ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS
JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY.
(CCH67)
DATED: This the 8th day of November, 2022
PRESENT
Sri. S. NATARAJ., BAL., LLB.
LXVI Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru
Crl.Misc.No.10665 of 2022
Petitioner :
Janata Adak @ Jantu Adhak,
Aged about 37 years,
s/o Bholanath Adak,
Presently resided at
No.513, Ground floor,
Doddavaki, 1st mandi Mohalla,
Mysore City.
(By Sri.Abdul Majeed Khan, Adv.)
/Vs/
Respondent :
State by:
Ulsoor Gate Police Station,
Bengaluru.
2
Crl.Misc.No.10665/2022
(By Public Prosecutor.)
ORDERS ON BAIL APPLICATION FILED UNDER
SEC.439 OF Cr.P.C.
Petitioner accused filed petition under Section 439
Cr.P.C. seeking regular bail in Cr.No.144/2022 registered
for the offences punishable under Sections 326A, 506,
504, 326 IPC by the respondent police pending on the file
of XXXIII NDPS Court, Bengaluru.
2. Brief facts of the case are as follows:
The petitioner is innocent of the offence alleged, he
has rivalry with the complainant. The allegations in the
complaint are false.
The offences alleged is not
committed by the accused. The ingredients of the offence
is not attracted. The petitioner is permanent resident, he
has got aged parents, wife and children, their family is
depending
on
his
earnings.
There
is
no
criminal
antecedents against the petitioner. He is ready and
willing to abide by the conditions and prayed to allow the
petition.
3
Crl.Misc.No.10665/2022
3. The learned Public Prosecutor filed objections
with the report of investigation Officer contending that
the petition is not maintainable, the petitioner has
caused injuries to CW1 with acid, the offence alleged is
heinous.
If the petitioner is released on bail he may
commit similar offence and threaten the prosecution
witnesses, the continuation of custody of petitioner is
necessary and prayed to dismiss the application.
4. Heard the arguments of both sides and perused
the record.
5. Out of above said facts and circumstances of the
case, the points that arose for consideration are as
under:
Point No.1: Whether the petitioner is entitled
for bail on the complaint of
Sri.Manthu Santra registered by
the respondent?
Point No.2: What Order?
6. My answer to the above points are as under:
Point No.1: In the Negative
Point No.2: As per the final order for the
following reasons:
4
Crl.Misc.No.10665/2022
REASONS
7. Point No.1: Upon perusal of the records,
allegations in the complaint are that the accused working
in Silver and Gold shop of CW4 and he is basically a
resident of Calcutta.
Along with the petitioner/the
accused CWs1 to 3 were also working in the shop of CW
4. That on 30.5.2022, at 00.30 a.m, early morning in the
shop of CW4 the accused was quarreling with CW2 and
abusing him in filthy words assaulted with wooden club
and threatened him. CW1 has recorded video of assault
to CW2 with intend to inform CW3, having noticed the
recording of video the accused abused CW1 in Bengali
language, threatened him, with acid kept in the shop
thrown on face and body of CW1 caused burn injuries
thereby the accused committed the alleged offence.
8. During investigation the accused was arrested
and produced before the trial Court, till today he is in
custody. During course of investigation the incriminating
articles were seized in PF 68/2022, after investigation
charge sheet has been submitted.
5
Crl.Misc.No.10665/2022
9. The learned counsel for petitioner contended that
along with charge sheet the wound certificate is not
produced. The incident was not occurred with intention
to cause injuries, due to sudden fight the alleged incident
was took place. The investigation is completed. The
continuation of custody is not required and he prayed to
allow the petition.
10. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the
petition contending that if the petitioner is released on
bail he may threaten the complainant and destroy the
evidence, no grounds are made out and prayed to dismiss
the petition.
11. After considering the submissions of both sides,
the charge sheet material discloses CW1 had sustained
acid injuries on his face, the photographs of CW1
showing prior to incident and after the incident are
produced. The statement of CW1 and other eye witness
also discloses the petitioner has thrown acid on face and
body of CW1 caused burn injuries. To attract Section
326A IPC causing grievous injuries is not required. Mere
6
Crl.Misc.No.10665/2022
use of acid and causing injuries are sufficient. Hon’ble
Supreme Court in case of Maqbool Vs State of UP in
Crl.A.1143/2018 dated 7.9.2018 has held as follows;
‘nature of injury being simple or grievous, is
irrelevant for distinguishing between Section
323 and Section 326A IPC if the injury referred
to under Section 326A or 326B is one among
specified 8 injuries, whether the 7 of them be
simple or grievous the special provisions are
attracted.’
In the present case prima facie Section 326A IPC is
attracted.
Though the Investigation Officer has not
submitted wound certificate along with charge sheet but
the photographs of CW1 depicts burn injuries on his
face and leg.
12. Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in case of
Mahesha Vs State by Malebennur police reported in
ILR 2022 KAR 4350 held that as follows:
‘An ‘acid attack’ by the accused not only
caused physical injuries but left behind a
permanent scar. It is a crime against basic
human rights and also violates the most
cherished fundamental rights guaranteed
under Article 21 of Constitution of India.’
7
Crl.Misc.No.10665/2022
13. Section 326A IPC came to be introduced by the
Legislature by Act 13/13 with effect from 3.2.2013 the
object
of
the
amendment
is
to
provide
stringent
punishment for crimes against a woman and also to
provide more victim friendly procedure in the trial of such
cases and to avoid adequate punishment for such
offences which causes grievous hurt by acid attack and
also
attempt
thereof.
In
the
present
case
the
accused/petitioner has caused acid injuries to CW1 and
taken away his right to life as guaranteed under Section
21 of Constitution. The arguments of learned counsel for
petitioner that the incident was took place in sudden
fight between the parties, however the accused had
knowledge that he was throwing acid and consequences
of throwing acid on a person. It is also the contention of
the petitioner that investigation is completed and charge
sheet is submitted.
14. As per the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in
Virupakshappa
Gouda
&
Another
Vs
State
Karnataka (2017) 5 SCC 406 has held as follows;
of
8
Crl.Misc.No.10665/2022
“Filing of charge sheet does not in any
manner lessen allegations but rather
establishes that after due investigation
prosecution has filed charge sheet for trial of
accused persons”.
15. Thus, in the present case, filing of charge sheet
is not the changed circumstances, rather establishes, the
allegations against the accused. There are reasonable
grounds to believe that the petitioner has committed the
offence under Section 326A IPC, it is imprisonment for
life with minimum punishment of 10 years. If the
petitioner is released on bail there may be chance of
tampering with the prosecution witnesses and threaten
the complainant and other witnesses. Therefore, the
continuation of custody of the petitioner till conclusion of
trial is necessary. Considering the gravity and nature of
offence, the accusation leveled against the petitioner, he
is not entitled for bail. Accordingly, answer point No.1 in
Negative.
16. POINT No.2:
In view of findings given on
point No.1, this Court pass the following order.
9
Crl.Misc.No.10665/2022
ORDER
The
petition
filed
by
the
petitioner/accused Janata Adak @ Jantu
Adhak
under
Section
439
CrPC
is
dismissed.
(Dictated to the Judgment Writer directly on computer,
corrected by me and then pronounced in the open Court
on this the 8th day of November, 2022).
(S. NATARAJ),
LXVI Addl.CC & SJ, Bangalore.
08.11.2022:
For orders
The Order is pronounced in the
open Court (vide separate
Order).
ORDER
10
Crl.Misc.No.10665/2022
The petition filed by the
petitioner/accused
Janata
Adak @ Jantu Adhak under
Section 439 CrPC is dismissed.
LXVI Addl.CC & SJ,
Bangalore.