KABC010090852024
IN THE COURT OF THE LXII ADDL.CITY CIVIL &
SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY [CCH.63]
Dated: This the 8 th day of April 2024
Present: Sri. A. EARANNA, M.Com., LL.M.,
LXII Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru City.
Crl.Misc.No. 3221/2024
Petitioner
Ramakrishna D.G.,
S/o Giriyappa
Aged about 66 years,
R/at #14/25, 5th Cross,
Arunodaya hospital,
Mallasandra,
Bengaluru
(By Manjunath M.R., Advocate).
Vs.

Respondent:
State by Bagalagunte Police station,
Bengaluru.
(Rep. by Public Prosecutor).

2
Crl.Misc.No.3221/2024
OR D E R
The petition is filed by the petitioner under Section 439
of Cr.P.C seeking for an order of bail.
2. On the strength of complaint the Bagalagunte Police
have registered the case in Crime No.123/2024 for the offence
punishable under Section 323, 326A, 504, 506 r/w 34
of
I.P.C.
3. In the bail petition it is contended that the petitioner
is innocent and he has not committed the alleged offences.
Alleged
offences
are
not
punishable
with
death
or
imprisonment for life and the same is triable by the Sessions
Court.

The respondent police have falsely implicated the
petitioner in the case on hand on the basis of false complaint.
The petitioner is not habitual nor convicted person. The
petitioner is the permanent resident of his address shown in
the cause title of the petition. The petitioner is having deep
root in the society. The petitioner is ready to abide by any
conditions that may be imposed by the Court and he is ready
to furnish surety to ensure his regular attendance before the
concerned Court. Inter alia, on these grounds, the petitioner
prays for allow of the bail petition.

4. Whereas, the learned Public Prosecutor filed objection
by contending that the petitioner has committed the offences
3
Crl.Misc.No.3221/2024
punishable under Section 323, 326A, 504, 506 r/w 34
of
I.P.C. At this stage, if the petitioner is granted with bail, the
petitioner may threaten the prosecution witnesses and he may
destroy the prosecution evidence or he may commit the
similar kind of offences and the possibility of petitioner fleeing
away from justice cannot be ruled out. Inter alia, on these
grounds, the learned Public Prosecutor prays to dismiss the
bail petition.
5. Heard both sides. Perused the record.
6. Following points arise for consideration of this Court:
1.

Whether the petitioner has made out
grounds to enlarge him on bail under
Section 439 of Cr.P.C.?

2.

What Order?

7. My findings on the above Points are as follows:
Point No.1 – In the Affirmative
Point No.2
– As per Final Order, for the
following:
R E A S ON S
8. Point No.1:
Counsel for the petitioner argued that
the petitioner has not committed any offence as alleged by the
respondent police. Respondent police have falsely implicated
the present petitioner. He was arrested and he was in the
Judicial custody. Police have already conducted the mahazar
4
Crl.Misc.No.3221/2024
and they have not sought for custodial interrogation, nor
recovery from the accused. Therefore, he prays to allow the
bail application. Learned Public Prosecutor have argued that
the case is under investigation. If the petitioner is released
on bail then
he may commit similar kind of offences.

Therefore he prays to reject the bail application.
9.

On perusal of the prosecution papers, it reveals
that one Kiran has lodged the complaint. Based on the
complaint, the respondent police have registered the case in
Cr.No.123/2024 for the offence punishable under Sections
323, 326A, 504
and 506 R/w. Sec. 34 of I.P.C. That one
Ramakrishnaiah who is the father of the complainant has self
acquired property opposite to Arunodaya hospital, 5 th cross,
No.14/25.

One
Kalavathi
who
is
the
daughter
of
Ramakrishnaiah with intention to grab the said property
made galata with the complainant not to come to the house of
the said Ramakrishnaiah. That on 22.03.2024 night at about
9.00 pm., when the complainant went to the house of his
father Ramakrishnaiah regarding Thithikarya of his mother,
then the said Ramakrishna abused in filthy language and put
some chemical on his eye and chest and caused injuries to
the complainant chest and eye. Hence the complainant lodged
the complaint.

5
10.

Crl.Misc.No.3221/2024
It is utmost contention of learned counsel for the
petitioner that, the victim already got discharged from the
hospital. On the other hand the prosecution have not
disputed the fact that discharge of the victim from the
hospital.

It
is
vehement
contention
of
learned
public
prosecutor that, mere on discharge of the victim, the
petitioner is not entitled for the bail. After ascertain both the
claim of the parties that it is not much disputed fact that, the
injured of this crime got discharged from the hospital.
Petitioner is the father of the complainant. On perusal of th
above said records, it reveals that there is property dispute
between the parties. Admittedly, the alleged offence under
section 326A is not bailable in nature, but the offences are
triable by the Court of Magistrate. On perusal of the
objection, it reveals that after lodging the complaint, the
petitioner was arrested and he was taken into custody. I.O.
has not sought custodial interrogation of the present
petitioner, nor further recovery from the present petitioner. No
person shall be kept in the judicial custody without proper
and cogent reason. If such person kept in judicial custody it
amounts to pre-trial conviction. Under such circumstances,
the grounds urged in the objection statement seems to be
rejection of bail cannot be taken into consideration.

11.

Moreover, the alleged offences are triable by the
Sessions Court, but there is no requisition for custodial
6
Crl.Misc.No.3221/2024
interrogation nor recovery from him.

That the prosecution
has filed the objections stating that if the petitioner is
released on bail, he may abscond from the case. On the other
hand, the petitioner was arrested and sent him behind the
bars. While considering the bail petition, Court ought to see
the nature of the offence and gravity of offence and feeling
from the case.

12. The petitioner claims to be the permanent resident
of address shown in the cause title of the bail petition and he
is also ready to abide by any conditions imposed by Court.
The apprehension and interest of the prosecution that the
petitioner may tamper with the prosecution witnesses, flee
away from justice can be taken and safeguarded by imposing
some suitable conditions.

Hence by considering all these
aspects, I am of the opinion that the petitioners are entitled
for bail and accordingly, I answer the above Point No.1 in the
Affirmative.
13. Point No.2: In view of my findings on Point No.1, I
proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
The bail petition filed by the petitioner
under
Section
allowed.

439
of
Cr.P.C
is
hereby
7
Crl.Misc.No.3221/2024
The petitioner shall be released on bail on
execution
of
his
personal
bond
for
Rs.1,00,000/- with one surety for like sum, in
Crime No.123/2024 of respondent Police
Station for the offence punishable under
Section 323, 326A, 504, 506 r/w 34 of I.P.C.,
on the following conditions:
1. That the petitioner shall appear before
the Court on all hearing dates without fail
except on unavoidable circumstances.
2. That the petitioner shall not indulge in
similar type of offences in future.
3.

That the petitioner shall not leave the
jurisdiction
of
this
Court
without
prior
permission of the concerned Court.
4. In case, if the petitioner violates any of
the above mentioned conditions, then this bail
order automatically stands canceled.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, typed by her directly on computer,
revised and corrected by me and then pronounced in the open
court on this the 8 th day of April 2024)
(A. EARANNA)
LXII Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge,
(CCH-63), Bengaluru.