KABC010090772024
IN THE COURT OF LXVII ADDL CITY CIVIL AND
SESSIONS JUDGE; BENGALURU CITY (CCH.No.68)
PRESENT
SRI. KASHIM CHURIKHAN, B.A., LL.M.
LXVII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru.
Dated this the 22nd day of April 2024.

Crl.Misc.No.3216/2024
Petitioner:
Mahesha S/o Ramesh,
Aged about 35 years,
R/o Yaraganahalli Village,
Thoreshettahalli Post,
Athagur Hobli, Maddur Taluk,
Mandya District.
(By Sri.S.R.D, Advocate)
-Vs-
Respondent:
State by Banasawadi Police,
Bengaluru.
(By learned Public Prosecutor)
ORDER ON BAIL PETITION
This is bail petition u/s.438 of Cr.P.C., filed by the
learned counsel for the petitioner seeking anticipatory
bail to the petitioner in the event of his arrest in
Cr.No.453/2014 of the respondent- Banasawadi Police
Station,
Bengaluru
registered
for
the
offences
2
Crl.Misc.No.3216/2023
punishable u/s.399 and 402 of IPC, pending on the file
of learned XI A.C.M.M, Bengaluru.
2.

The brief facts of the case are as under:
The informant has lodged the report to the Police
stating that on 18.08.2014, at about 8.45 p.m., while
the informant was on patrolling duty along with his
staff, he received a credible information that near the
vacant space of service road at Babusapalya Bus-stop,
situated at 1st Block, HRBR Layout, five unknown
persons formed an unlawful assembly holding deadly
weapons like clubs and making preparation to commit
dacoity on the pedestrians and road users.
3.

The petitioner has been arraigned as accused No.2.

In the bail petition, the petitioner has contended that he
is innocent and has not committed any offences. The
petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case.
There are no ingredients to attract the offences alleged
against the petitioner. The case against accused No.1
and 4 was ended in acquittal in S.C.No.845/2015 and
S.C.No.75/2016
vide
order
dated
27.04.2016
and
25.02.2021 respectively and hence, this petitioner is
also entitled for bail. During the crime stage itself, the
petitioner was enlarged on bail and he was regularly
appearing before the Court and thereafter he met with
an accident and hence, he could not attend the Court.
Therefore, the trial Court has split-up the case against
3
Crl.Misc.No.3216/2023
him and ordered to register a split-up charge sheet
against him. During Covid-19 period, the petitioner has
not received any notice from the Court and therefore,
he did not appear before the trial Court and the Court
issued NBW against him and hence, he has got
reasonable apprehension of his arrest. The absence of
the petitioner is not intentional one, but for bonafide
reasons. The custodial interrogation of the petitioner is
not required, as the Investigating Officer had already
laid the charge sheet. The offences alleged against the
petitioner is not punishable with either death or
imprisonment
for
life.

The
petitioner
hails
from
respectable family and having deep roots in the society.
The petitioner has no any bad antecedents. The
petitioner is permanent resident of the address shown
in the cause title and hence, there is no chance of his
absconding. The petitioner is ready and willing to abide
the terms and conditions those going to be imposed by
this court and ready to offer surety to the satisfaction of
the court, if anticipatory bail is granted. Hence, sought
for allowing the bail petition.
4.

The learned Public Prosecutor has filed objections
and contended that there are prima-facie materials as
to the commission of alleged offences. The petitioner
has not assigned any genuine reasons for granting bail.
After obtaining the bail, the petitioner has violated the
bail conditions and hence, the case against him was
4
Crl.Misc.No.3216/2023
split-up and now moved the present bail petition
seeking anticipatory bail. At this stage, if the petitioner
is enlarged on bail, he may threaten the prosecution
witnesses,
destroy
the
prosecution
evidence
and
hamper the trial by fleeing away from justice. Hence,
sought for rejection of the bail petition.
5.

Heard.

6.

The points raised for determination are as under:
1. Whether the petitioner has made out
sufficient grounds to enlarge him on
anticipatory bail ?
2. What Order ?

7.

My findings to the above points are as under:
Point No.1: Negative,
Point No.2: As per the final order,
for the following:
REASONS
8.

Point No.1: The case of the prosecution is that
on the alleged date, time and place, the petitioner
along with other accused has formed an unlawful
assembly
holding
deadly
weapons
and
making
preparation to commit dacoity on the public. The same
has been denied by the learned counsel for the
petitioner.
9.

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the
petitioner that the petitioner was enlarged on bail at the
5
Crl.Misc.No.3216/2023
crime stage. Since he was met with an accident, he did
not attend the Court. Thereafter, the trial Court split-up
the case and issued NBW against him. The absence of
the petitioner is not intentional one, but for bonafide
reasons. Prays to allow the bail petition.
10.

The learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that
after obtaining the bail, the petitioner has violated the
bail conditions and hence, the petitioner does not
entitle for bail. Prays to dismiss the bail petition.
10.

On perusal of the records, it appears that after
obtaining bail, the petitioner was remained absent
before the trial court and hence, the trial court has splitup the case against the petitioner and ordered to
register split-up charge sheet against him.

Therefore,
court had issued N.B.W., against the petitioner and it
was unexecuted.

The facts of the case revealed that
the petitioner does know the pendency of the case
against him, in which case he had obtained bail on
conditions. The petitioner fails to comply the conditions
imposed on him at the time of passing bail order.

11.

In the decision reported in ILR 2002 Karnataka
5003 (Dr.A.Ebenezer .Vs. State of Karnataka by
Cubbon Park
Police, Bengaluru), Their Lordships
have held that once the accused has been released on
bail, thereafter on his absence, if the trial court has
6
Crl.Misc.No.3216/2023
issued N.B.W., against him, the petitioner is not entitled
for discretionary relief under Section 438 of Cr.P.C.
Therefore, there is no merit in the petition. Hence,
the petition deserves to be dismissed.

However, the
petitioner is directed to appear before the jurisdictional
court to seek an order for recalling of N.B.W., against
him.

Accordingly, I answer the Point No.1 in the
Negative.
12.

POINT No.2 :
My finding on this point is as per
the following :
ORDER
The bail petition filed by the petitioner under Section
438 Cr.P.C., is hereby dismissed.
(Dictated to the Stenographer directly on computer, corrected,
signed and then pronounced by me in the open court on this the
22nd day of April 2024)
(Kashim Churikhan)
LXVII Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru.

KASHIM
MOHADDINSAHEB
CHURIKHAN
Digitally signed by
KASHIM
MOHADDINSAHEB
CHURIKHAN
Date: 2024.04.24
11:26:18 +0530