KABC010159392022
Presented on
Registered on
Decided on
Duration
: 14-06-2022
: 14-06-2022
: 21-06-2022
: 0 years, 0 months,
7 days
BEFORE THE LXVI ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS
JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY.
(CCH-67)
DATED: This the 21 st day of June, 2022
PRESENT
Sri. S. NATARAJ., BAL., LLB.
LXVI Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru
Crl.Misc.No. 5931 of 2022
Petitioner :
Saif Khan @ Saif,
S/o Syed Annu,
Aged about 20 years,
R/at No.72, 1st Cross,
Ayesha Masjid,
Mangammanapalya,
Bengaluru
(Accused No.4)
(By Sri. Shaik Ali, Adv.)
/Vs/
Respondent :
State by:
HSR Layout Police Station,
Bengaluru.
(By Public Prosecutor.)

2
Crl.Misc.No.5931/2022
ORDERS ON BAIL APPLICATION FILED UNDER
SEC.438 OF Cr.P.C.
Petitioner/accused No.4 filed bail petition under Section
438 Cr.P.C seeking anticipatory bail in the event of his
arrest in Cr.No.581/2018 for the offence punishable under
Section 395 of IPC registered by the respondent pending on
the file of 6th ACMM, Bengaluru.
2. The petitioner case in brief are as follows:
The respondent police registered case on the complaint
of one Vijayendra.

The respondent police completed
investigation submitted charge sheet. The respondent is
making efforts to arrest him, he has got reasonable
apprehension of arrest. He is innocent of the offences
alleged, he is not involved in the offences alleged. There is
delay in filing the complaint, his name is not found in the
FIR, there are no eye witnesses to the incident. He is
permanent resident of address shown in the cause title and
he prayed to allow the petition.
3. The learned Public Prosecutor filed objections
contending that the petition is not maintainable either in
Crl.Misc.No.5931/2022
3
law or on facts. The proclamation has been issued against
him. The charge sheet allegations discloses that petitioner
and
other
accused
persons
committed
dacoity
on
5.09.2014 at 9:00 a.m. from CW-1, 4, 5, 6 and 7 robbed
mobile phones and cash of Rs.8000/-. The investigation is
completed, if the petitioners are released on bail they may
commit similar offences and prayed to dismiss the petition.
4. Heard the arguments of both sides and perused
the record.
5. Out of above said facts and circumstances of the
case, the points that arose for consideration are as under:
Point No.1: Whether the petitioner is entitled
for anticipatory bail on the
complaint
of
Sri.Vijayendra
registered by the respondent?
Point No.2: What Order?
6. My answer to the above points are as under:
Point No.1: In the Negative
Point No.2: As per the final order for the
following reasons.:
REASONS
7. Point No.1: Charge sheet allegations is that on
5.09.2014 at 9:00 p.m. CW-1 and his friends CWs 4 to 7
4
Crl.Misc.No.5931/2022
and 10 have boarded TT vehicle bearing Reg.No.KA-02 AC6531 near Jayadeva Hospital, near BTM Layout the
accused in furtherance of common intention stopped all of
a sudden shown knife assaulted with hands robbed mobile
phones and Rs.8000/- amount and ran away thereby
committed the offence under Section 395 read with Section
34 IPC.
8. During the course of investigation accused Nos. 1
to 4 were arrested, recovered the robbed mobile phones,
knife and subjected to PF 163/2014. After conclusion of
investigation submitted charge sheet in CC.No.7339/2016
before the 6th ACMM, Bengaluru. Order sheet of the trial
Court discloses subsequently accused No.4/petitioner was
enlarged on bail as per the orders in Crl.Mis.5595/2014
dated 20.10.2014. After filing charge sheet trial Court has
taken cognizance of the offence on 17.03.2016, summons
was ordered against A-1 to A-4 and NBW to A-5 who was
absconding. From time to time the summons and warrant
was ordered the presence of petitioner was not secured,
ultimately the committal Court has issued proclamation
Crl.Misc.No.5931/2022
5
under Section 82 and 83 of Cr.PC and after due publication
of proclamation posted for 299 Cr.P.C. evidence.
9. From the above said facts of the case it is clear
that the petitioner accused No.4 during investigation was
arrested
later
on
he
was
released
on
bail,
now
proclamation has been issued after taking cognizance.
Now the question for consideration is once the petitioner
was arrested and released on bail whether the anticipatory
bail in respect of same crime number is maintainable. So,
in this regard it is useful to refer judgment of Hon’ble High
Court in Crl.P.No.9975/2021 dated 21.01.2022 in Ramesh
V/s
DY.RFO,
Hosur
Section,
Gauribidanur
Range,
Chikkaballapura District, wherein his Lordship has held
“Once accused appeared before the trial Court thereafter
on account of his absence warrant has been issued by the
Court for deliberate absence, the remedy of anticipatory
bail under Section 438 CrPC is not maintainable to such
person.”
10. So, in view of the above said dictum of the
Hon’ble
High
Court
petitioner
is
not
entitled
for
anticipatory bail. He has to seek remedies in accordance
Crl.Misc.No.5931/2022
6
with law, on this ground petition is dismissed as not
maintainable,
accordingly
answer
point
No.1
in
the
negative.
11. POINT No.2:- In view of findings given on point
No.1, this Court pass the following order.
ORDER
The
petition
filed
by
the
petitioner/
accused – Saif Khan @ Saif under Section 438
Cr.P.C. is rejected.
(Dictated to the Judgment Writer directly on computer,
corrected by me and then pronounced in the open Court on
this the 21st day of June, 2022).
(S. NATARAJ),
LXVI Addl.CC & SJ, Bangalore.

7
Crl.Misc.No.5931/2022
The Order is pronounced in
the open Court (vide separate
Order).
ORDER
The petition filed by the
petitioner/ accused – Khan @
Saif under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is
rejected.
LXVI Addl.CC & SJ,
Bangalore.

8
Crl.Misc.No.5931/2022