1
Crl.Misc. No.8227/2023
KABC010226432023
IN THE COURT OF THE LX ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS
JUDGE, BENGALURU (CCH-61)
:PRESENT:
Sri Narashimsa M.V., B.Com., LL.B.,
LX Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City.
Dated this the 12th day of September, 2023.
Crl.Misc.No.8227/2023
PETITIONER:-
Abdul Khadar Zilani @ Zilani (A-3)
S/o Riyaz Bhasha
Aged about 19 years,
R/at No.12, Jakkur Road,
Muninarayanappa Garden,
Jakkur Layout, Bangalore
(Rep by Sri MC – Adv)
-VS-
RESPONDENT:-
The State of Karnataka
By: Kodigehalli Police Station,
Bengaluru.
(By Public Prosecutor)
ORDER
Accused No.3 in Kodigehalli Police station Crime No.220/2023
have filed this bail application under Sec.439 of Cr.P.C. for the
offence punishable under Section 323, 324.307,302 r/w 34 of IPC.

2
Crl.Misc. No.8227/2023
2.

Brief facts of the case as forthcoming from the bail
petition are as under:On 12.8.2023, at about 5 pm, deceased and his wife going in
a car, when they reached near Ambedkar Bhvan, Canara Bank
Layout Government Hospital, at that time 4 to 5 unknown persons
have picked up quarrel without any sufficient cause or reason and
assaulted to Chandrashekar in deadly weapon on his head, face
and sustained blood injury and ran away, public have shifted him to
Medstar Hospital through Ambulance, and further treatment he has
shifted to NIMHANS, thereafter due to failure of treatment injured
died.
On 13.08.2023 respondent police have registered a case
against accused persons for offence punishable u/S 323, 324 r/w 34
of IPC, on the basis of complaint lodged by one Kemparaju, resident
of Muneshwaranagar, present petitioners arrayed as A-5 and 6,
during the course of investigation, police have added Section 307,
323, 324, 504 r/w 34 of IPC, due to failure of treatment, injured
died, respondent police inserted Section 143, 302, 307, 323, 504 r/
w 149 of IPC.

3
Crl.Misc. No.8227/2023
3. The grounds urged in this petition are as under:Petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case, he has not
committed any offences as alleged by complainant, he is innocent,
the entire material collected by prosecution does not connect the
petitioner, petitioner was not at all present at the alleged place
during the incident, he is a I B.A student, due to supplementary
exams being conducted, place of incident from the college is about
12 kms from the college, so it might take around half an hour to
reach that spot, which is a clear indication about absence of
petitioner, complainant seems to be a cooked up story as the whole
of the incident has taken place at a different date than the petitioner
or other accused being arrested,
he is a sole bread earning
member of the family, due to petitioner being in judicial custody, the
family of petitioner is finding difficult to survive without earnings of
petitioner as he is the only bread earner in his family, petitioner is a
law abiding citizen and has no bad antecedents, he is a permanent
resident of Bangalore, he is ready and willing to offer surety for the
satisfaction of this court, if deems fit to enlarge him on bail. Hence
prayed for grant of bail.
4.

Leaned Public Prosecutor has filed objections to bail
4
Crl.Misc. No.8227/2023
application. In objections, averments made in the first information
are reiterated. Further, it is stated that accused is not deserve to be
enlarged on bail, if he is enlarged on bail, there is every possibility
of he absconding from the jurisdiction of the Court, he will threaten
the witnesses and destruct the evidence.

Hence, prayed for
rejection of bail application. It is stated that accused has committed
heinous offences and he should not be granted bail.

5. Heard the learned Advocate for petitioner and the learned
Public Prosecutor.
6.

The point that arises for my consideration is :
1.

7.

Whether bail application filed under
Sec.439 of Cr.P.C. by accused No.3
deserves to be allowed?

My finding to the above point is in the Negative, for the
following:REASONS
8. Point No.1:- Along with this bail application, entire order
sheet of crime No. 220/2023, first information, FIR remand
application are filed.

Perusal
of the order sheet of learned
Magistrate dated 15.8.2023 discloses that
petitioner was
arrested and produced before the learned Magistrate, since then,
5
Crl.Misc. No.8227/2023
he is in custody. Order sheet further reveals that A-1 and A2
were arrested subsequently, initially, case was registered for the
offence punishable u/S 505, 34, 323, 324 of IPC, later on
permission was sought for to include Section 307 of IPC, it was
granted, injured died, thus, permission to conduct investigation
u/S 302 of IPC sought for permission was granted.
9. Order sheet further reveals that A-1 to A6 were handed
over to police custody for the purpose of investigation till
21.8.2023. Contention of learned counsel for A-3 is that since
the investigation has been completed petitioners have been
falsely implicated in the case, custodial interrogation is not at all
necessary. It is contended by learned counsel that A- 3 is a
student, if he is detained in custody, their career will be at stake.
It is necessary to note that A-3 is a students. The assault is said
to have taken place on Chandrashekar, in broad day light,
offence alleged against A-3 is punishable u/S 302 of IPC. One
Goutham, was present at the spot when the assault was caused
by A-1 to 6, even said Gautham is injured, mere completion of
period of police custody does not mean that the investigation
has been completed, Goutham is an eyewitness, if A-3
is
6
Crl.Misc. No.8227/2023
enlarged on bail, there is every possibility of life threat to Sri
Goutham.
10. Along with the bail application educational records of
petitioners/A3 are produced, It disclose that A-3 has completed
2nd PUC in March 2023.

A3 is studying in UG course,
considering the nature of offence, and the common intention of
all the accused , the intention is quite clear. Counsel for A3 has
relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme court reported in
(1977) 4 SCC 308, /supreme court has held as under:
“The basic rule may perhaps be tersely put as bail, not jail,
except where there are circumstances suggestive of fleeing from
justice or thwarting the course of justice or creating other
troubles
in the shape of repeating offences or intimidating
witnesses and the like, by the petitioner who seeks enlargement
on bail from the Court. We do not intend to be exhaustive but
only illustrative.”
11. The aforesaid circumstances for rejection of bail are
existing in so far as this case is concerned,
young people
indulging in commission of heinous acts cannot be viewed
7
Crl.Misc. No.8227/2023
leniently.

Considering the nature and gravity of injury, more
particularly place, time when the offence has committed.
However, taking into consideration, the gravity of offence, this
Court is of clear opinion that A-3 is not entitled to be enlarged on
bail, hence, I answer above point in the negative and proceed to
pass the following:
ORDER
Bail application filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C.
by Petitioner/Accused No.3 in Kodigehalli P. S.
crime No. 220/2023 is hereby rejected.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and typed by him, after corrections,
pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the 12th day of September, 2023).

(NARASHIMSA.M.V.)
LX Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru.