KABC010160432022
IN THE COURT OF THE LXIII ADDL.CITY CIVIL &
SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH­64) AT BENGALURU
Dated this the 16th day of July 2022
: PRESENT :
Sri.A.V.Patil, B.Com., LL.B.,
LXIII ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS
JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY.

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS NO.5974/2022
PETITIONER
:
Ravi Kumar @ Ravi
S/o Rajanna
Aged about 28 years,
Residing at 3rd Cross,
1st Block, Nagarabhavi,
Bengaluru.
(By Sri.Srinivas.R, Advocate)
­ Vs ­
RESPONDENT :
State by Jnanabharathi Police
Station, Bengaluru.
(By Public Prosecutor)
2
Crl.Misc.5974/2022
ORDER
The petitioner has filed this petition u/s 438 of Cr.P.C,
for his release on bail in the event of his arrest in connection
with
a
case
registered
in
Cr.No.301/2021
(CC
No.15570/2016) of respondent Police Station for the offences
punishable u/s 399, 402, 120(B) and 332 of IPC.
2.

It is stated in the bail application that the petitioner is an
innocent and has not committed any offences as alleged in the
charge sheet. The present case is a split­up case and in the
main case, the petitioner was granted bail. The complainant
Police have already completed the investigation and submitted
charge­sheet. It is a suo­moto case filed by respondent PS and
the petitioner is falsely implicated in the case. He has not at
all participated in the alleged crime on that day. There is no
overt­act against the petitioner. The offences alleged against
the petitioner are not exclusively punishable either with death
or imprisonment for life. He is the only earning member of his
family. The petitioner hails from a respectable family and has
no bad antecedents. He is ready and willing to abide by the
terms and conditions imposed while releasing him on bail. On
the basis of registering FIR, IO investigated the matter and
filed charge sheet against the petitioner. Therefore, he
3
Crl.Misc.5974/2022
apprehends his arrest. Hence, prayed to grant anticipatory
bail.
3.

The learned P.P. has opposed the bail application by
filing the objections statement. According to him IO after due
investigation found that petitioner has committed the offences
and hence, filed the charge sheet against him. Filing of charge
sheet itself shows that petitioner has committed the offence
alleged in the charge sheet. The petitioner jumped the bail
conditions and therefore, not entitled for grant of anticipatory
bail. Among other grounds prayed to dismiss the bail
application filed by the petitioner.
4.

Heard the arguments from learned Counsel for petitioner
and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the materials placed
on record.
5.

The points that arise for my consideration are:
1. Whether the petitioner is entitled for anticipatory
bail as prayed in the application filed under
Sec.438 of Cr.P.C.?
2. What order?

6.

My answer to the above points are as follows:
Point No.1:
Point No.2:
In the negative
As per final order
for the following;
4
Crl.Misc.5974/2022
REASONS
7.

Point No.1:­ The case of the prosecution that on
08.08.2013, at about 1.00 a.m. the petitioner and other
accused persons by holding deadly weapons were all standing
at junction where the VV Head Office and Sai sports Road of
Bangalore with preparation to commit dacoity/robbery of
money and gold ornaments on the public moving therein.
When the police officials went to catch them, they assaulted
them and prevented the police officials from discharging their
duties. After investigation, IO filed the charge­sheet for the
offence punishable u/s 399, 120(B), 332 of IPC.
8.

At out set it is necessary to note that the petitioner is
accused
No.1
in
the
charge­sheet
filed
by
the
respondent/Police in Cr.No.301/2013 of Jnanabharathi Police
Station. It is registered as CC No.24161/2015 by learned IX
ACMM, Bengaluru. Earlier this petitioner was enlarged on bail.
The certified copy of the order sheet of CC No.15570/2016
produced by the petitioner disclose that as the petitioner is
absconding the original CC No.24161/2015 was ordered to
split up and registered CC No.15570/2016.
9.

The material paced on record clearly discloses that
petitioner was granted the bail. However, he jumped the bail
5
Crl.Misc.5974/2022
conditions and therefore, NBW has been issued against the
petitioner showing that he is absconding. Absolutely nothing
has been whispered by the petitioner as to why he fails appear
in CC No.24161/2015. As the NBW is issued against the
petitioner for jumping the conditions imposed while releasing
him on bail, the petitioner is not entitled for anticipatory bail.
Even otherwise the petitioner has not made out grounds to
grant the relief of anticipatory bail. Hence, it is not fit case to
exercise the discretion in favor of petitioner. For the fore going
reasons, I answer this point in the negative.
10.

Point No.2:­ In view of my findings on Point No.1, I
proceed to pass the following;
ORDER
The bail petition filed by petitioner u/s 438 of
Cr.P.C. is hereby dismissed.
(Dictated to the Judgment Writer, typed by her, taken print out,
corrected by me and then pronounced in the open Court on this the 16th
day of July 2022)
(A.V.PATIL)
LXIII ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS
JUDGE (CCH­64), BENGALURU CITY.