KABC010017522023
IN THE COURT OF XLV ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS
JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY (CCH-46)
DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2023
PRESENT:
Sri Manjunatha, B.A., LL.B.,
XLV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.
CRL.MISC. No.562/2023
Petitioner
Nawaz
S/o Vajeer Ahmed, a/a 31 Yrs.,
R/o I Cross, I Main,
Near Babu Oil Shop,
Old Byappanahalli,
Bangalore-38.
(By Sri/Smt: S. R. Raghavednra,
Adv.)
V/s
Respondent
State by Indiranagar P.S.,
Bangalore.
(By the learned Public Prosecutor)
ORDER ON BAIL PETITION FILED U/S.439 OF Cr.P.C.
The learned counsel for the 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 by the respondent Police on the complaint of Smt.
Amuda, A/a 26 Yrs., the Respondent Police have registered
crime against the Petitioner for an offence punishable U/s.307
2
Crl.Misc.No.562/2023
r/w Sec.34 of IPC in their Crime No.257/2022 in the interest of
justice.
2. The brief facts of the bail petition is that on the basis of
the information of Smt.Amuda, A/a 26 Yrs., the Respondent
Police have registered case in Crime No.257/2022 against the
Petitioner for an offence punishable U/s.307 r/w Sec.34 of IPC.
The petitioner was arrested on 28.11.2022, 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., 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:
1.Whether the petitioner has made out any
ground
for
his
release
on
bail
in
3
Crl.Misc.No.562/2023
Cr.No.257/2022 of Indiranagar 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.257/2022 against the Petitioner for the offence
punishable U/s.307 r/w Sec.34 of IPC on the Complaint of
Smt.Amuda, A/a 26 Yrs.,
It is the case of the complainant that she fell in love with
accused, and planned to marry, and she had taken the name of
accused tattoo on her hand, but later the accused left her and
went to his native place, and got married another women, as
such the family members of complainant have performed the
marriage of complainant with another person by name Elumalai,
and out of the wedlock, they had two children, and she started
to work as maid servant. Meanwhile the accused along with his
family came and started to reside in the same locality where the
complainant and her family members were residing.

The
accused started to causing disturb her by spoiling the name of
husband of complainant, and forcing her to lead life with him,
and he will take care of her and her children, she refused for the
same, as such the accused started to harass her by causing
4
Crl.Misc.No.562/2023
disturbance by abusing her in filthy language and threatening
her with life, due to which the husband of complainant by
suspecting left her, and due to which she started to reside along
with her parents and brother at Kadiraiahnapalya, Bangalore.
Ever after that the accused harassing her and use to abuse in
filthy language. And on 25.11.2022 at about 10.00 p.m. the
accused came and knocking the door, when she hear the voice,
avoided him, at about 10.30 p.m. when she opened the door to
get chips for her kids, at that time the accused attacked her
from behind, pulled her hairs, insulted her by abusing in filthy
language and with intention and knowledge to kill the
complainant, stabbed with knife on her left face, left ear, right
side of the neck, left hand, and near right waist mercilessly, and
caused grievous injuries to her and when she screamed for
help the accused ran with the person who came along with him
in a motorbike. Accordingly, complainant has lodged the
complaint against the accused before respondent police.
9.The contention of petitioner is that he is innocent of the
offence alleged and there is absolutely no case made out
against him for the alleged offence. 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
5
Crl.Misc.No.562/2023
petitioner is innocent of the offence alleged against him. In view
of the same the contention of petitioner that he is innocent of
the offences alleged
against him does not stand for
consideration.
10. The offence alleged against the petitioner is
punishable U/s.307 r/w Sec.34 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.
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 28.11.2022 and till date his
custody is continued. On perusal of the entire records placed
before the Court, prima facie it discloses that the petitioner with
intention and knowledge attempted to kill the complainant by
outraging her modesty in public. The gravity and seriousness of
the offence and the direct involvement of the petitioner in
attempting to kill the complainant, by causing injuries has to be
considered on priority while considering the bail to the
petitioner. 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. Considering all these aspects,
it is found that at the stage of investigation if the petitioner is
released on bail, it may hamper the process of investigation.

6
Crl.Misc.No.562/2023
12. 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 final report is not filed.
Considering all these aspects, it is found that at the stage of
investigation if the petitioner is released on bail, it may cause
delay in investigation and there is possibility of petitioner
influencing the witnesses when the witnesses and accused are
residents of the same place.

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 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.

7
Crl.Misc.No.562/2023
(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.
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. In the case on hand
the alleged intention and knowledge of the petitioner in
attempting to kill the complainant by outraging her modesty in
public 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. Further the gravity of the offence
and allegation made against the petitioner in committing the
alleged offence is taken into consideration and for the said
reasons the petitioner has not made out any ground for his
release on bail. More over the earlier bail petition has been
dismissed by this Court and now without any change of
circumstances, once again he has moved this petition
contending the same facts seeking the same relief. Hence, for
8
Crl.Misc.No.562/2023
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 30th day of
January, 2023)
(Manjunatha)
XLV Addl. CC & SJ, Bengaluru.

9
Crl.Misc.No.562/2023
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.