IN THE COURT OF THE LXIII ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS
JUDGE (CCH-64) AT BENGALURU)
Dated this 4th day of July, 2022
-: P R E S E N T :Sri.SADANANDA NAGAPPA NAIK,B.A.L, L.L.B,
LIX ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, CCH-60
I/C LXIII ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, CCH-64.
BENGALURU CITY.
Crl.Misc.No.6061/2022
PETITIONER/
ACCUSED
:
Pavan Kumar. K
S/o Krishnappa,
Aged about 20 years,
R/at No.333, TBH Quarters,
Jayanagara 1st Block,
Bangalore south-560011.
(By Sri. Raj Prabhu, Advocate)
-Vs RESPONDENT
:
State of Karnataka,
Represented by it’s
The Police Inspector,
Siddapura Police Station, Bengaluru.
(Rep. By Learned Public Prosecutor)
ORDER
The petitioner has filed this petition U/Sec.438 of Cr.P.C,
for release him on anticipatory bail in the event of arrest in
connection with a case registered in Crime No. 109/2022 of
respondent police station that registered for the offences
2
Crl. Mis 6061/2022
punishable U/Secs.506, 448 and 308 of IPC.
2. The petitioner in his bail petition has contended
that, he is innocent of the alleged offences and has been
falsely implicated in the alleged offences. He is he is law
abiding citizen and permanent resident of Bangalore. The
petitioner comes from respectable family having deep
roots in society and he is a young boy aged 20 years. The
offences alleged is not punishable with life imprisonment
or death. He is ready and willing to abide by the terms and
conditions that may be imposed by the Court and he is
ready and willing to furnish substantial surety. Therefore,
the petitioner has sought for grant of anticipatory bail.
3. The prosecution has opposed this bail petition by
filing objections contending that this petition is not
maintainable
either
in
law
or
on
facts.

From
the
investigation prima facie, it goes to show that petitioner is
also involved in commission of the alleged offences. There
is a prima facie evidence against the petitioner. No
justifiable grounds urged for grant of bail to the petitioner
as prayed. If he is released on bail, he is likely to abscond
and he may tamper with the prosecution witnesses.
Therefore, the prosecution has sought for rejection of this
anticipatory bail petition.
4. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the
petitioner
prosecution.

and
the
learned
Public
Prosecutor
for
3
Crl. Mis 6061/2022
5. Perused the bail petition, objection of the prosecutor
and the papers placed before the Court.
6. The points those arise for my consideration are :
Point No.1 : Whether the petitioner is entitled for
anticipatory bail as sought?
Point No.2 : What Order?

7. My answer to the above points is as under :
Point No.1
: In the negative,
Point No.2
: As per final order,
for the following,
REASONS
8. Point No.1: It is alleged in the complaint that, on
29.04.2022 at 5.00pm, the petitioner went to the home
of the complainant and told him to come out with him.
When complainant did not join the petitioner, the
petitioner entered the house of complainant, slapped the
informant and stabbed him by using a knife on his left
portion
of
chest.

He
sustained
bleeding
injury.

Thereafter, the petitioner warned complainant not to
reveal the same to any other persons and left the house.
Hence, the petitioner has approached this court seeking
grant of anticipatory bail.
9. The learned counsel for petitioner submits that the
petitioner is falsely implicated in the above case.

There
4
Crl. Mis 6061/2022
is no prima-facie case against him. The learned counsel
further submits that the respondent police are making
hectic efforts to arrest the petitioner and hence the
petitioner apprehend his arrest from the hands of the
respondent police. The petitioner hails from respectable
family having deep roots in the society and he is ready
to abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this
court in the event he is enlarged on anticipatory bail.
10.

Per contra, the learned Public Prosecutor
submits that the petitioner has committed the heinous
offence by stabbing the informant with a knife.
investigation is still in progress.

The
At this stage, if the
petitioner is released on bail, there is every chance of
him to abscond from the jurisdiction of this court and it is
difficult to secure the petitioner for trial and therefore, he
is not entitled to be released on bail.
11. On perusal of entire materials on record it
shows that, there are specific allegations against the
accused that on 29.04.2022, when the complainant was
at home, at about 5.00pm, the petitioner came to
complainant
house
and
slapped
on
the
face
on
complainant. Thereafter, took out of a knife and slabbed
the complainant. The matter is still under progress.
the
petitioner
is
grant
on
anticipatory
bail,
If
the
apprehension of the prosecution that he may flee from
justice and commit similar offence cannot be ruled out at
5
this stage.

Crl. Mis 6061/2022
At this stage petitioner is not entitled for
anticipatory bail. Therefore, I answered Point No.1 in the
Negative.
12. Point No.2:- In view of the above discussion I
proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
Petition filed
by the
petitioner
under
section 438 Cr.P.C. is hereby dismissed.
(Dictated to the Stenographer directly on computer, print
out taken by him is corrected, signed and then pronounced by
me in the open court on this the 4th day of July, 2022).

(Sadananda Nagappa Naik)
LIX ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, CCH-60,
BENGALURU CITY.