KABC010160102022
IN THE COURT OF THE LXX ADDITIONAL CITY
CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPECIAL JUDGE,
AT BENGALURU (CCH. No.71)
Dated this the 01st day of July, 2022.
Present ;
SRI. PRAKASH.V., B.A(L)., LL.B.
LXX Additional City Civil & Sessions
Judge, Special Judge, Bengaluru.
Crl.Misc.No.5961/2022
PETITIONER/S :
Ravikumar @ Ravigunda @
Ravi S/o Late Selvaraj,
Aged about 26 years,
R/at No.K-51/B, 13th Cross,
K.E.B Office side, L.N.Pura,
Near Bandireddy Circle,
Sriramapura, Bengaluru.
(Rep.by Sri.S.R.D., Advocate.,)
-V/s-
RESPONDENT/S:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY
K.P.Agrahara Police Station,
Bengaluru.
2. Pritham. K
S/o R. Kumar,
Aged about 28 years,
R/at No.67, Near Ragavendra
School, 4th main, 8th Cross,
2
Crl.Misc.5961/2022
N.R.Garden, Cholarapalya,
Bengaluru-560 023.
(R1 & 2, Rep. by Public
Prosecutor)
ORDER
The petitioner/accused No.1 has filed this petition
under section 439 of Cr.P.C., seeking
for his
enlargement on bail in Spl.C.No.12/2022 (Crime
No.160/2021) for the offences punishable under
Sections 302, 504, 506 read with section 34 of IPC
and Sec.3(1)(r)(s), 3(2)(v) of Scheduled Castes &
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act
1989.
2.

In the bail application it is stated that, petitioner is
an innocent for the alleged offences and has not
committed
any
offence
as
alleged
in
the
complaint. There are no ingredients to attract the
offence
alleged
against
the
petitioner
and
collected over all appraisal of the allegation and
collected other materials could not make out any
3
Crl.Misc.5961/2022
prima facie case against the petitioner. There is no
recovery from him and there is no knowledge of
the incident and also there is no specific allegation
are made against him and in the absence of the
same the petitioner should be treat as a innocent
till the guilt is proved. There is no allegation of
caste abuse
in
04.10.2021,
but
i.e.09.10.2021
the FIR or complaint dated
after
registered
lapse
the
of
false
5
case
days
by
inserting the SC/ST Act against the accused. There
is no materials to attract the provisions of SC/ST
(POA)
Act.

Further
contended
that
whoever
assaulted the victim as is not shown anywhere.
The document of Hospital Record RTA does not
entered in MLC. There is no enmity between the
accused and victim. The victim was discharged
from Tanmaya Hospital on 24.10.2021 and he was
died on 27.11.2021, after lapse of 33 days, the
victim was suffered sugar and BP, the complainant
4
Crl.Misc.5961/2022
was admitted in the complaint. He is law abiding
citizen, having no bad antecedents, as such he
would neither abscond nor delay the proceedings
nor flee from justice and at the same time would
be available to appear and co-operate with this
Court on each and every dates of hearings. The
petitioner is aged about 26 years and he is
permanent resident of address shown in the cause
title and having deep roots in the society. Further
he undertakes not to tamper any prosecution
witnesses and to abide by the conditions to be
imposed by this Court. The petitioner is ready and
willing to furnish solvent surety to the satisfaction
of the court for his future appearance. Hence,
petitioner sought for bail.
3.

After institution of this petition,
the notice is
ordered to be issued to the complainant, who
failed to appeared before this court.

5
4.

Crl.Misc.5961/2022
As against the above application, the learned
Special
Public
Prosecutor
has
filed
detailed
objection opposing the bail application on various
grounds and reiterated averments of compliant
and contended that the IO has filed charge sheet
in this case and also recorded the statement of
eye witness by name Gowtham, who was son of
deceased and also present along with deceased at
the time of incident. If the petitioner is released he
may
threaten
the
complainant
and
other
witnesses, may tamper with the evidence, commit
similar offences and may abscond permanently.
Thus sought for rejection of bail.
5.

Heard the arguments of both the sides and
perused the records.

6.

The following points arise for my consideration;
POINTS
1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to
be enlarged on bail u/s 439 of Cr.P.C?

6
Crl.Misc.5961/2022
2. What order?
7.

My answers to the above points are ;
Point No.1:
In the Negative
Point No.2:-
As per final order
for the following;
REASONS
8.

POINT NO.1: The materials placed on record
would go to show that the respondent Police have
registered the case in Crime No. 160/2021 for the
offences punishable under Sections 504, 506, 307
read
with
34
of
IPC.

After
completion
of
investigation, the IO has submitted Charge sheet
against the accused No.1
and 2 for the offence
punishable under sections.302, 504, 506 read with
34 of IPC and Sec.3(1)(r)(s), 3(2)(v) of Scheduled
Castes
&
Scheduled
Tribes
(Prevention
of
Atrocities) Act 1989. The accused No.1 is the
petitioner
of
this
petition.

The
gist
of
the
prosecution case is that on 04.10.2021 at about
7
Crl.Misc.5961/2022
10.45p.m., within the limits of K.P.AGRAHARA
Police Station, Bengaluru, the petitioner along with
accused No.2 with common intention insulted and
humiliated by taking the name of caste, assaulted
on the head of deceased with Cricket bat. Thereby,
caused the death of the deceased.
9.

The learned counsel for petitioner would argued
that, petitioner herein has not at all committed the
alleged offences, he is innocent person and his
name was not appeared either in the complaint or
FIR. Hence, prays to allow the bail petition.

10. The learned Public Prosecutor has argued that the
offences are serious in nature. The eye witnesses
at the time of investigation have specifically
stated
the
overt
act
of
the
petitioner.

The
involvement of the petitioner herein is established
in the charge sheet, if released him there is
chance of threatening the complainant and other
8
Crl.Misc.5961/2022
witnesses and may also tamper with the evidence.
Hence, bail petition does not deserve to allow.
11. On perusal of the charge sheet, it is alleged that it
is the petitioner has dashed his motorbike bearing
registration No.KA-02-KA-0894 to the Activa Honda
Motorbike of deceased
when the deceased was
going to bring water, threatened the deceased to
take away his life, abused by taking the name of
caste and thereafter the accused No.2 said to
caused the death of deceased by hitting on the
head by means of Cricket Bat. The materials
placed on record prima facie discloses that, it is
the accused No.1 is said to be the route cause for
the alleged incident who later came back with
accused No.2 to cause death of deceased. The
alleged
offences
are
serious
in
nature.

The
involvement of the accused herein is established
in the charge sheet, if released there is every
chance of causing threat to the complainant and
9
Crl.Misc.5961/2022
other witnesses and may also tamper with the
evidence. Under these circumstances, looking into
the nature of the offence, at this stage it may not
be appropriate to release them on bail. If the
petitioner is
released, his presence cannot be
secured for the trial as they may abscond, tamper
the prosecution witnesses and also may pose life
threats to the complainant and witnesses, may
commit similar offences. The apprehension of
prosecution are well founded. Hence, holding that
no exceptional grounds are made out for grant of
bail. Accordingly, Point No.1 is answered in the
‘Negative’.
12. 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 439 Cr.P.C., is
hereby dismissed.

10
Crl.Misc.5961/2022
Keep the copy of this order in
original case file in Spl.C.No.12/2022
(Typed my dictation directly in computer by the Stenographer,
corrected, signed and then pronounced in open court on this the 01 st of
July, 2022).

(PRAKASH.V)
LXX Addl. City Civil and Sessions
Judge and Special Judge, Bengaluru.