1
Crl.Misc No.6052/2022
IN THE COURT OF LVI ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL
AND SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH-56)
Present: Sri Rajesh Karnam K., B.Sc., LL.B.,LL.M.,
LXIX Additional City Civil and
Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.
Dated this the 30 th day of June, 2022
Crl. Misc. No.6052/2022
PETITIONERS :
1. Prasanna Kumar @
Prasanna,
s/o Srinivasa,
aged about 40 years
r/at No. 247, HRBR layout,
5th B main road,
Bangalore.
2. Ajay Joseph Chacko @
Ajay s/o Joseph
aged about 24 years,
r/o No. 176B Park avenue,
Horamavu, Agara,
Bangalore.
(Accused No.1 and 2)
(By Sri.B.K.Ramesh, Advocate)
Vs
RESPONDENT:
State of Karnataka
By Upparpet P.S.
Bengaluru.
(By Public Prosecutor)
2
Crl.Misc No.6052/2022
ORDER ON BAIL PETITION FILED
U/SEC. 439 OF CR.P.C.
This
bail
application
is
filed
by
the
petitioners/accused seeking bail as they have been allegedly
committed offence punishable u/sec. 341, 504, 307 r/w 34
of IPC in Cr No. 84/2022 of Upparpet P.S.
2. The petitioners submits that, they are innocent of
the offence alleged offence and they have not committed any
offence, the respondent-police have falsely implicated them
in the above case. There is no motive or ill will to the
petitioner to commit the alleged offence. The injured had
not sustained any severe injuries.
The investigation is
pending and the charge sheet is not yet filed. The
petitioners submits that they are ready and willing to abide
by any conditions that would be imposed on him by this
Hon’ble Court. They are
a permanent resident of the
address stated in the cause title and they will not flee away
from the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court. Hence there is
no question of absconding during the investigation or
otherwise and there is no criminal antecedents and have
not been convicted by any court as such the petitioner is
entitled to the relief of bail. With these contentions
petitioner prays for grant of bail.
3. After service of notice the learned Public Prosecutor
3
Crl.Misc No.6052/2022
filed objections and opposed the grant of bail and contended
that if the bail is granted, the petitioners may flee away from
justice and may commit similar kind of offences and may
tamper the
prosecution witnesses. The dispute
regard to gas cylinder.
Therefore,
is with
the bail cannot be
granted.
4. Heard the arguments of both sides and perused the
available materials on records.
5. The points that arise for my consideration are as
under:
1. Whether petitioners are entitled for bail
under Sec.439 of Cr.P.C.?
2. What order?
6. My finding on the above points are as follows:
Point No.1:
In the negative
Point No.2:
As
per
final
order
for
the
following;
REASONS
7. On going through the material on record it depicts
that
the
respondent-police
registered
Cr.
No.84/2022
against the accused for the offence punishable u/sec. 341,
504, 307 of IPC. It is alleged that the complainant alongwith
his friend Annappa and Suresh had been to Minchu bar
and restaurant at Gandhinagar to consume alcohol, at
about 3.00 am on 14.6.2022 all of a sudden 2 persons came
4
Crl.Misc No.6052/2022
there and asked for mobile, one of them caught hold his
shirt color and started abusing and another removed knife
and assaulted on his head due to which caused injury near
left eye. The petitioners submit that they have not caused
injury. The petitioners are strangers to complainant and his
friend. In a abrated situation the alleged incident happened.
As such the injuries sustained by complainant is simple in
nature.
Therefore there is no alleged offence committed.
They are in JC since from the date of arrest. The petitioners
submits the offences alleged are not exclusively punishable
with with death or imprisonment for life, the petitioners
hails from respectable family and
bread earner, as such
may be released on bail on any of the conditions.
8. Learned PP submits though the charge sheet is not
yet filed. There are eye witnesses to the incident and
statements are being recorded by the IO. If the petitioners
are released on bail they may tamper the prosecution
witnesses and cause delay in conclusion of the trial.
Accordingly seeks to dismiss the application. It is submitted
that in the CD
IO submitted
accused are needed for
further investigation, their finger prints have been taken for
due process. Accordingly seeks for rejection of the bail.
9. On perusal of the compliant it is found that the
Upparpet Police registered Crime No.84/2022 against the
5
Crl.Misc No.6052/2022
accused/petitioner and others. It is alleged in the complaint
that the accused assaulted the complainant with knife and
caused injuries near eye.
Hence he lodged complaint. On
these allegation respondent police registered crime. After
that the Respondent Police investigated the matter and
arrested the accused.
progress
As the investigation is still in
and IO seeks
the
custody of the
accused
necessary, as per the report this court at this stage is not
satisfied to consider the bail application of the petitioners.
Hence the Petitioners do not deserves for grant of regular
bail. Accordingly this point is answered accordingly.
10. Point No.2:
By considering the above over all
reasons this court proceed to pass the following;
ORDER
Bail petition filed under Sec. 439 of Cr.P.C. by
the Petitioners is hereby rejected.
(Dictated to the JW, transcript thereof is corrected, signed
and pronounced by me in open court on this the 30 th day
of June, 2022)
(Rajesh Karnam.K.)
69 Addl.C.C. & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru.
th
6
Crl.Misc No.6052/2022
Order pronounced in open court, vide
separate order.;
ORDER
Bail petition filed under Sec. 439 of Cr.P.C.
by the Petitioners is hereby rejected.
(Rajesh Karnam K.)
LVI Addl.C.C. & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru.