KABC010161412022
IN THE COURT OF XLV ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS
JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY (CCH-46)
DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF JUNE, 2022
PRESENT:
Sri Manjunatha, B. A. LL.B.,
XLV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru.
CRL.MISC. No.6020/2022
Petitioner
Manas Rana
S/o Sheeba Rana,
A/a 27 Yrs.,
R/o C/o Devaraj Reddy’s House,
Near Papas Rice Factory,
Hommadevanahalli,
CK Palya Road,
Bengaluru.
(By Sri/Smt; S. Bhagyalakshmi,
Advocate)
AND
Respondent
State by Hulimavu P.S.,
Bengaluru.
(By the learned Public
Prosecutor)
ORDER ON BAIL PETITION FILED U/S.439 OF Cr.P.C.
The learned counsel `for petitioner has filed bail petition
U/s.439 of Cr.P.C. to release him on bail consequent upon his
remand to judicial custody in the case registered against him
2
Crl.Misc.No.6020/2022
and others by the respondent Police on the complaint of Kumari
Urmila Rohidas D/o Sitesh Rohidas, 20 Yrs., for the offence
punishable U/s.307 of IPC in their Crime No.267/2021(SC
No.672/2022) in the interest of justice.
2. On the basis of the information of Kumari Urmila
Rohidas, a/a 20 Yrs., the respondent police registered case in
Crime No.267/2021 against the petitioner for the offence
punishable U/s.307 of IPC.
The petitioner was arrested on 19.12.2021, and produced
him before the concerned Magistrate, 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 and resident of Bangalore, 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 Prosecution has has filed objection
in detail 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.
5. Heard the arguments on both sides and perused the
materials on record.
6. The following points that arises for consideration of this
court:
3
Crl.Misc.No.6020/2022
1.Whether the petitioner has made out any
ground
for
his
Cr.No.267/2021(SC
release
on
bail
No.672/2022)
in
of
Hulimavu 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 perusal of the documents placed
before the Court, it reveals that based on the complaint that has
been lodged by the complainant-Kumari Urmila rohidas , a/a 20
Yrs., respondent police have registered case against the
petitioner for the offence punishable U/s.307 of IPC. And after
completion of investigation submitted charge sheet against the
petitioner before V Addl., CMM., Court, Bangalore for the
offences punishable U/s.448, 450 and 307 of IPC.
9. It is the case of the prosecution that the accused and
CW.2 Kumari Binodini Kisan fell in love, and later they
separated, as the accused by quarreling assaulted her. and on
12.12.2021 at 10.00 a.m. complainant and Cw.2 were at home,
the accused cause trespass into the house, quarreled with
Cw.2, complainant pacified the said quarrel.

Again in the
afternoon at 1.00 p.m. the accused trespassed into the house,
by threatening Cw.2, and with an intention and knowledge to kill
her, assaulted her with iron machete over on her right forearm
4
Crl.Misc.No.6020/2022
wrist and hand and left forearm wrist and hand, caused
grievous injuries. Accordingly, complainant has filed complaint
against the accused before respondent police.
10.It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that there is
no intention or motive specifically attributed to the petitioner in
committing the alleged offence, the alleged incident has taken
place wherein the injuries caused by petitioner during
altercation. The respondent police on suspicious ground, have
registered a case against the petitioner on the false complaint
of the complainant. The investigation is already completed and
charge-sheet has been filed and accused/petitioner is not
required for further investigation. The petitioner hails from a
respectable family having deep roots in the society without any
criminal antecedents, and he is ready to furnish surety to the
satisfaction of the Court, Hence, he prayed to allow this petition.
11.Per contra the contention of learned public prosecutor
that the respondent police have registered FIR in Crime
No.267/2021 against the petitioner for the offence punishable
U/s.307 of IPC, investigation is completed and charge-sheet is
filed against the accused indicating that the accused has
committed the offences punishable U/s.448, 450 and 307 of
IPC. The offence U/s.307 of IPC is though not punishable with
death, but it is punishable with imprisonment of
either
description for a term which may extend to ten years and shall
also be liable to fine and it is triable by this Court. Further it is
contended that at this stage if the bail is granted in favour of the
petitioner, then he may abscond and also tamper the
prosecution witnesses who are related to the complainant and
5
Crl.Misc.No.6020/2022
CW.2. Hence, at this stage the contention of petitioner that he
is innocent of the offence alleged against him does not stand for
consideration. It is not desirable on the part of this Court at this
stage to come to the conclusion that the petitioner is innocent of
the offences alleged against him.
12.On the basis of arguments of learned counsel for
petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor, verified the FIR,
charge-sheet and relevant case papers.

On perusal of the
documents and analyzing the facts of the case, it clearly
discloses that the CW.2 Kumari Binodini Kisan has been
caused due to the assault and grievous injuries caused by the
petitioner.

It is also prima facie clear that the petitioner
quarreled with with her, and assaulted her with machete,
caused grievous injuries.
13.
reported
At this stage I would like to rely upon the ruling
in
(2017)
5
Supreme
Court
cases
406(Virupakshappa Gouda and another V., State of
Karnataka and another)
wherein it is held that
“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. Filing
of charge sheet does not amount changing
circumstances.”
The Hon’ble Supreme Court has also held that
“Bail application cannot be allowed solely or
exclusively on ground that fundamental principle
of criminal jurisprudence is that accused is
6
Crl.Misc.No.6020/2022
presumed to be innocent until found guilty by
competent
court
nor
on
basis
of
certain
observation made in different context – There
must be application of mind, appreciation of
factual
score
and
understanding
of
pronouncements in field – Bail cannot be granted
in arbitrary or fanciful manner – Where bail is
granted
taking
into
consideration
irrelevant
materials and keeping or relevant considerations,
such
order
becomes
vulnerable
warranting
annulment.”
At this stage, I would also like to refer the principles
relating to grant or refusing of bail stated in Kalyan Chandra
Sarkar V., Rajesh Ranjan (2004) 7 SCC 528: 2004 SCC
(Cri) 1977. In para 11 of the said judgment the Court has held
that:
while granting bail the Court should exercise
its discretion in a judicial manner and not a
matter of course.

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.
(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
7
Crl.Misc.No.6020/2022
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.
The principles governing the grant of bail were reiterated
by a two judge Bench 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;
(ii)nature and gravity of the accusation;
(iii)severity of the punishment in the event of
conviction;
8
Crl.Misc.No.6020/2022
(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.
At this juncture I would also like to refer the dictum of law
laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India held in
Criminal Appeal No.883 of 2021 (Harijit Singh Vs.
Inderpreet Singh @ Inder and another). In this case the
Hon’ble
Supreme
Court
while
disposing
the
bail
application has referred the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme
Court (i).(1978) 1 SCC 240(Gudikanti Narasimhulu V.
Public Prosecutor, High Court of AP,
(ii). (2012 9 SCC 446(Ash Mohammed V. Shiv Raj Singh),
(iii) (2004) 7 SCC 521 ( State of Maharashtra V. Stiaram
Popat Vetal, and
(iv) (2020) 2 SCC 118(MahipalV. Rajesh Kumar),
The law laid down in the above decisions that while
granting or rejecting the bail to the accused it is equally
incumbent upon the Courts to exercise its discretion judiciously,
cautiously and strictly in compliance with the basic principles
laid in a plethora of decisions. In the instant case while applying
the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court with the fact of
9
Crl.Misc.No.6020/2022
the case, it is clear that at this stage the petitioner/accused,
who has with an intention and knowledge to commit murder
CW.2 Kumari Binodini trespassed into the house and assaulted
with iron machete over her right forearm wrist and hand, and
left forearm wrist and hand, caused grievous injuries, as
referred in the wound certificate and has not made out any valid
ground to enlarge him on bail.
14. Further as per the materials on record it is clear that
the petitioner was sent to judicial custody on 19.12.2021, and
he is in judicial custody and till date is not a valid ground to
grant bail in his favour at this stage as per the reasons and
discussions made above. Absolutely there is no grounds made
out by the petitioner to grant bail to him as sought for in the
petition when there is serious allegations against him and
charge sheet is filed for committing the alleged offences.
Hence, there no merits in the bail petition for consideration on
the facts of the case and also in law. Considering the gravity
and seriousness of the offences alleged against him the
petitioner is not entitle for the relief as sought. Accordingly, I
answer point No.1 in the negative.
15. Point No.2: In view of answer of this court on point
No.1, this court pass the following:-
10
Crl.Misc.No.6020/2022
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 29th day of June, 2022)
(Manjunatha)
XLV Addl. CC & SH, Bengaluru.

11
Crl.Misc.No.6020/2022
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.