KABC010162912022
IN THE COURT OF XLV ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS
JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY (CCH-46)
DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF JULY, 2022
PRESENT:
Sri Manjunatha, B.A., L.L.B.,
XLV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru.
CRL.MISC. No.6077/2022
Petitioner
M. Gopal Rao
S/o Nageshwar Rao,
A/a 54 Yrs.,
R/a No.03,
Sonapura Village, Kampli Taluk,
Bellary District.
And also r/a No.27,
Palanahalli Main Road,
near Lake Main Gate,
Yelahanka,
Bengaluru-560 064.
(By Sri/Smt: T. K. Suresha, Adv.)
V/s
Respondent
State by Yelahanka P.S., Bangalore.
(By the learned Public Prosecutor)
ORDER ON BAIL PETITION FILED U/S.439
OF Cr.P.C.
The advocate for petitioner has filed bail petition U/s.439
of Cr.P.C. to release him on bail consequent upon his remand to
2
Crl.Misc.No.6077/2022
judicial custody in the case registered against him by the
respondent Police on the complaint of Smt.Nethravathi, who is
the wife of petitioner, the Respondent Police have registered
crime against the Petitioner for an offences punishable
U/s.498A, 307, 504 and 506 of IPC and Sec.4 of DP Act in their
Crime No.144/2022 in the interest of justice.
2. The brief facts of the bail petition is that on the basis of
the information of Smt.Netravathi, who is the wife of petitioner,
the Respondent Police have registered case in Crime
No.144/2022 against the Petitioner for an offences punishable
U/s.498A, 307, 504 and 506 of IPC and Sec.4 of DP Act. The
petitioner was arrested on 09.06.2022, and produced him
before the Jurisdictional Court, and he was remanded to judicial
custody and till date he is in judicial custody.
3. The petitioner is claiming the bail on the grounds that he
is innocent of the alleged offences and the false case has been
lodged against him to implicate him in the crime, which he has
not committed. It is also submitted that the petitioner being law
abiding citizen, would abide with the conditions put forth by the
Court in case of his release. Further contended that if he is
detained his family would suffer and hence, he has prayed for
allowing the petition.
4.The learned Public Prosecutor has filed objection in
detail along with the report of I.O., and case diary by reiterating
the contents of the complaint and contended that this bail
petition is not maintainable in law or on facts of the case.
Accordingly, prayed for dismissal of the petition.

3
Crl.Misc.No.6077/2022
5. Heard the arguments on both sides and perused the
materials on record.
6. The following points that arises for consideration of this
court:
1.Whether the petitioner has made out any
ground
for
his
release
on
bail
in
Cr.No.144/2022 of Yelahanka P.S. at this
stage as sought for?
2. What order?
7. This court has answered the above points are as
under:
Point No. 1
:
In the Negative
Point No. 2
:
As per final order
for the following:
REASONS
8. Point No.1: On considering the papers on record, it is
evident to note that the Respondent Police have registered a
Crime No.144/2022 against the Petitioner for the offences
punishable U/s.498A, 307, 504 and 506 of IPC and Sec.4 of DP
Act on the Complaint of Smt.Netravthi, who is the W/o
petitioner.
It is the case of the complainant that on 30.09.2011 the
marriage of complainant was solemnized with the accused and
out of the wedlock they blessed with two children. Since the
marriage the accused subjecting the complainant by demanding
additional dowry, and in that regard on 8.4.2018 complainant
lodged complaint before Kudur P.S., Even though the accused
on 2.6.2022 at 12.00 noon picked up quarrel with the
4
Crl.Misc.No.6077/2022
complainant in demanding additional dowry by abusing filthy
language, the accused brought a knife from kitchen, with an
intention and knowledge attempted to kill her and caused
injuries to her right hand, when she screamed for help the
neighbors and the public gathered and have rescued the
complainant from the hands of accused. Unable to bear the
physical
and
mental
cruelty
caused
by
the
petitioner,
complainant constrained to file complaint against the petitioner
before respondent police.
9.The contention of petitioner is that he is innocent of the
offences alleged and there is absolutely no case made out
against him for the alleged offences. Further contended that he
is ready to offer surety to the satisfaction of this Court for
regular his regular appearance before this Court and before the
I.O., Per contra the learned Public Prosecutor has contended
that the investigation is not yet completed, at this stage if the
bail is granted in favour of the petitioner, then he may abscond
and also tamper the prosecution witnesses and hamper the
investigation. Further at this stage when investigation is under
progress, this Court cannot come to the conclusion that the
petitioner is innocent of the offences alleged against him. In
view of the same the contention of petitioners that he is
innocent of the offences alleged against him does not stand for
consideration.
10. The offences alleged against the petitioner is offences
punishable U/s.498A, 307, 504 and 506 of IPC and Sec.4 of DP
Act. The offence U/s.307 of IPC is though not punishable with
death, but it is punishable with imprisonment of
either
5
Crl.Misc.No.6077/2022
description for a term which may extend to ten years and shall
also be liable to fine and it is triable by this Court.
11.It is well settled principle of law that the granting of bail
is discretionary power of the Court and every case should be
considered on the basis of facts of each case. Further as per
the materials on record it discloses that the petitioner was
remanded to judicial custody on 09.06.2022 and till date his
custody is continued. On perusal of the entire records placed
before the Court, prima facie it discloses that the petitioner
subjected the complainant to physical and mental harassment
by demanding additional dowry and failed to take care of
complainant and her children, and with intention and knowledge
attempted to kill her by knife, caused injuries.

It is the
contention of the prosecution that the material objects have
been seized. The materials facts before the Court prima facie
discloses the involvement of petitioner in committing the alleged
offence against women and society. Further the gravity and
seriousness of the offence and the direct involvement of the
accused/petitioner in attempting to kill the defacto complainant
has to be considered in priority while considering the bail to the
petitioner. It is equally important to note that as per the
objections raised by the prosecution if at all the petitioner is
released on bail at this juncture, it would definitely hamper the
investigation of the case and likelihood to cause injury to the
complainant, who is none other than his wife. Considering all
these aspects, it is found that at the stage of investigation if the
accused/petitioner is released on bail, it may cause delay in
investigation and filing of the charge sheet.

6
Crl.Misc.No.6077/2022
12.The
Hon’ble
Supreme
Court
in
2021
CRI.L.J.2678: AIR online 2021 SC 205 in Criminal Appeal
No.343 of 2021(arising out of SLP(Crl.,) No.1530 of 2021)
and Interlocutory Application Nos.24659 and 41412 of
2021 dated 19.03.2021 (State of Kerala V. Mahesh) has
held that when the incident is heinous, the Court has to
consider the material on record, which prima facie made out
reasonable grounds to believe that accused has committed the
alleged offence. The Court should not proceed to grant bail by
considering the period of custody of the accused till the
investigation completed.

In the instant case also the
investigation is yet to be completed and charge sheet is not
filed. Considering all these aspects, it is found that at the stage
of investigation if the accused/petitioner is released on bail, it
may cause delay in investigation and there is possibility of
accused influencing the witnesses when the witnesses and
accused are residents of the same place and he injured is the
wife of petitioner/accused. Further in Kalyan Chandra Sarkar
V., Rajesh Ranjan (2004) 7 SCC 528: 2004 SCC (Cri)
1977 held that.
while granting bail the Court should exercise its
discretion in a judicial manner and not a matter
of coerce.

It is also necessary for the Court
granting bail to consider
(a) The nature of accusation and the severity of
punishment in case of conviction and the nature
of supporting evidence.

7
Crl.Misc.No.6077/2022
(b) Reasonable apprehension of tampering with
the witness or apprehension of threat to the
complainant,
(c) Prima facie satisfaction of the Court in
support of the charge, as a dictum of law laid down
in Ram Govind Upadhyay V. Sudarshan Singh
(2002) 3 SCC 598: 2002 SCC (Cri) 688 that
“Grant of bail though being a discretionary order
– but, however, calls for exercise of such a
discretion in a judicious manner and not as a
matter of course.

Order for bail bereft of any
cogent cannot be sustained.
Further
in
Prasanta
Kumar
Sarkar
V.

Ashis
Chatterjee; (2010) 14 SCC 496: (AIR 2011 SC 274)
9….It is trite that this Court does not, normally,
interfere with an order passed by the High Court
granting
or
rejecting
bail
to
the
accused.

However, it is equally incumbent upon the High
Court
to
exercise
its
discretion
judiciously,
cautiously, and strictly in compliance with the
basis principles laid down in a plethora of
decisions of this Court on the point.

It is well
settled that, amount other circumstances, the
factors to be borne in mind while considering an
application for bail are:
(i)Whether
there
is
any
prima
facie
or
reasonable ground to believe that the accused
committed the offence;
8
Crl.Misc.No.6077/2022
(ii)nature and gravity of the accusation;
(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 influenced;
and
(viii)danger, of course, of justice being thwarted
by grant of bail.
13.In the instant case while applying the ratio laid down
by the Hon’ble Supreme Court with the fact of the case, it is
found that investigation is still in progress. The learned counsel
for the petitioner has produced the wound certificate of the
complainant, which discloses that the injuries are simple in
nature. How the learned counsel for the complainant obtained
unofficial copy of the wound certificate is not expalined. The
report of I.O., filed along with the objection of learned public
prosecutor does not discloses the nature of injuries sustained
by the complainant.

The learned counsel for the petitioner
produced by the wound certificate is not certified copy and
based on such unauthenticated documents this Court cannot
form an opinion regarding the nature of injuries alleged to have
been sustained by the complainant, but the intention and
knowledge of the petitioner in attempting to kill the complainant
9
Crl.Misc.No.6077/2022
has to be taken in consideration while considering the bail
petition. The facts before the Court prima facie discloses the
involvement of petitioner in committing the alleged offence
against women and society.
offence and
Further the the gravity of the
allegation made against the petitioner in
committing the alleged offence is taken into consideration and
for the said reasons the petitioner/accused has not made out
any ground for his release on bail.

Hence, for the above
reasons and discussions this bail petition does not survive for
consideration on merit. Accordingly, I answer point No.1 in the
Negative.
14. Point No.2: In view of answer of this court on point
No.1, this court pass the following:ORDER
The bail petition filed by the petitioner
U/s.439 of Cr.P.C. is hereby dismissed.
(Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer directly on Computer,
corrected by me and then pronounced in open Court on this the 2nd day of July,
2022)
(Manjunatha)
XLV Addl. CC & SJ, Bengaluru.

10
Crl.Misc.No.6077/2022
Order pronounced in the open court
vide its separate order
ORDER
The bail petition filed by the petitioner
U/s.439 of Cr.P.C. is hereby dismissed.

(Manjunatha)
XLV ACC & SJ, Bengaluru.