KABC010159492022
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 6th day of July 2022.
Crl. Misc.No.5937/2022
PETITIONER :
Smt.Manjula.N.
W/o.Jayaram,
37 years,
R/at.No.83, 1st Floor,
4th Main, 4th Cross,
Behind Vidyapeetha,
Gururaja Layout,
Thyagarajanagar,
Bengaluru.
(By Sri.D.J.A., Advocate)
.Vs.

RESPONDENT :
State by
Chandra Layout Police,
Bengaluru.
(By learned Public Prosecutor)
ORDER ON BAIL PETITION
This is bail petition under Section 438 of Cr.P.C., filed
by the learned counsel for the petitioner seeking
Crl.Misc.No.5937/2022
2
anticipatory bail to the petitioner in the event of her
arrest in C.C.No.4588/2020 (Crime No.206/2019 of the
respondent-Chandra Layout Police Station, Bengaluru)
registered for the offences punishable under Sections
380, 411 and 413 of IPC, pending on the file of learned
VIII Addl. 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 he is residing at III Floor in Rajashekar’s
House, situated at Ganesh Temple Road, Nayandahalli,
Bengaluru. On 22.10.2019, as usual, he and his wife
were selling snacks in front of his house. At about 1-30
p.m.,
he went to the house and saw the door was
opened and went inside and came to know that the
jewels worth Rs.3,00,000/- were thefted by some
burglars.
After completing the investigation, the Investigating
Officer has laid the charge sheet against the accused
for the alleged offences.
3.

The petitioner has been arrayed as accused No.2.

In the bail petition, the petitioner has contended that
she is innocent and has not committed any offences.
The petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case.
The petitioner has got valid and tenable defense. There
is delay in lodging the report. There are no reasonable
grounds to believe that the petitioner is guilty of the
alleged offences.

The custodial interrogation of the
Crl.Misc.No.5937/2022
3
petitioner is not required, as the Investigating Officer
has already completed the investigation and laid the
charge sheet.

The informant has not stated in the
report about the identity or features of the culprits,
who have committed the crime. The accused No.3 has
been already enlarged on bail by this court and hence,
sought for bail on the ground of parity. The respondent
police are making hectic efforts to arrest the petitioner
and
hence,
the
apprehension
offences
petitioner
has
got
reasonable
as to likelihood of her arrest. The
alleged
against
the
petitioner
are
not
punishable with either death or imprisonment for life.
The petitioner hails from respectable family, 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 her absconding. The petitioner is
ready and willing to abide by 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.
The
petitioner
is
absconding
commission of alleged offences.

from
the
date
of
At this stage, if
Crl.Misc.No.5937/2022
4
anticipatory bail is granted, she may threaten the
prosecution
witnesses,
destroy
the
prosecution
evidence and hamper the trial by fleeing away from
justice apart. 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 : Affirmative,
POINT No.2 : As per the final order,
for the following:
REASONS
8.

POINT No.1 : The case of the prosecution is that
the petitioner along with other accused, has committed
theft in the house of the informant.

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 is innocent and has not
committed any offences. The petitioner has been
falsely implicated in this case.

No name of the
petitioner is find place either in the report or in the FIR.
The co-accused has been already enlarged on bail and
hence, sought for bail on the ground of parity. Prays to
allow the bail petition.

Crl.Misc.No.5937/2022
5
10.

The facts as to theft committed in the house of
informant while he and his wife were selling the snacks
in front of their house are all to be proved in full
fledged trial. The involvement of the accused No.1 and
he has handed over the stolen articles to his sister i.e.,
the petitioner and his wife accused No.3 are all to be
proved in full fledged trial with authenticated testimony
of the prosecution witnesses.

It is pertinent to note
that the informant and his wife were there infront of
their house and at that juncture, how the thief entering
into the house and burgled the articles are to be
established in the course of trial.

The petitioner is a
woman and her involvement in receiving the stolen
articles knowing it to be the stolen articles are to be
proved in full fledged trial.

That apart, securing the
accused for the purpose of trial is the criteria to grant
bail. Further, the co-accused was already enlarged on
bail and hence, this petitioner is also entitled for bail on
the ground of parity, as she is footing on the same
lane.

The offences alleged against the petitioner are
not punishable with either death or imprisonment for
life.

The alleged offences are triable by the Court of
Magistrate. The petitioner has undertaken to abide the
bail conditions and ready to furnish surety for her due
appearance before the Investigating Officer as well as
before the court for the purpose of trial. Further, the
custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required,
as the Investigating Officer has already completed the
Crl.Misc.No.5937/2022
6
investigation
and
laid
the
charge
sheet.

The
apprehension of prosecution could be dealt with by
imposing some conditions. Therefore, the petitioner is
entitled for bail. Accordingly, I answer the Point No.1 in
the Affirmative.
11.

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
allowed,
subject
to
the
following
conditions.
(1) The petitioner is ordered to be released on
bail in the event of her arrest in
C.C.No.4588/2020 (Crime No.206/2019 of
the respondent-Chandra Layout Police
Station, Bengaluru) on executing her self
bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- along with
the surety for like sum ;
(2) The petitioner shall appear before the trial
court within 15 days from the date of his
order ;
(3) The petitioner shall not tamper with the
prosecution witnesses;
(4) The petitioner shall appear before the
court on all the hearing dates ;
(5) The petitioner shall not
committing any offences.

indulge
in
(Dictated to the Judgment-writer on computer, corrected, signed and then
pronounced by me in the open court on this the 6th day of July 2022)
(KASHIM CHURIKHAN)
LXVII Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge,
BENGALURU.