KABC010090412024
IN THE COURT OF THE LXIV ADDL.CITY CIVIL &
SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH-65) AT BENGALURU
Dated this the 7th day of May 2024
: PRESENT :
Sri.A.V.Patil, B.Com., LL.B.,
I/c LXIV ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS
JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY.
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS NO.3210/2024
PETITIONER
:
Syed Javeed,
W/o Syed Anwar,
Aged about 43 years,
Residing at No.86, 31st “A” Cross,
Tilak Nagar, Jayanagar,
Bangalore.
(By Sri. Shivashankar L., Advocate)
– Vs –
RESPONDENT :
State by Banashankari Police
Station, Bengaluru.
(By Public Prosecutor)
2
Crl.Misc.No.3210/2024
ORDER
The petitioner has filed this petition u/s 439 of
Cr.P.C., for grant of bail in Cr.No.12/2011 registered for
the offences punishable u/s 143, 144, 147, 148, 324,
307, 302, 120(B) r/w Section 149 of IPC.
2.

It is stated in the bail application that he is
innocent of the alleged offence and he has got valid and
good tenable defence on his behalf.

Earlier he was
enlarged on bail. This court issued NBW against him.
He was produced before the court under warrant and
this court remanded him in judicial custody.
No.849/2016
21.12.2021.

he
was
granted
regular
In SC
bail
on
The respondent police for statistical
purpose have foisted the false case and made the
petitioner as scapegoat. There is no overt act attributed
against him for the alleged offences. He is residing in
the above address and is not involved in any offences.
He is ready to obey the terms and conditions imposed
by this Court. Hence, prayed to grant 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
3
Crl.Misc.No.3210/2024
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. 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 bail as
prayed in the application filed under
Sec.439 of Cr.P.C.?
2. What order?

6.

My answer to the above points are as follows:
Point No.1: in the negative;
Point No.2: As per final order for the following;
REASONS
7.

Point No.1:- It is the case of the prosecution that,
on 16.01.2011 accused persons formed an unlawful
assembly, armed with deadly weapons, assaulted Diwan
Ali by using sickle, pistol, in order to kill him. Diwan Ali
succumbed to injuries caused by the accused persons.
There was an unlawful assembly formed with common
4
Crl.Misc.No.3210/2024
object to cause murder of Diwan Ali.

Accused was one
of the members in the said unlawful assembly.

In
order to fulfill the common object of the said unlawful
assembly and in furtherance of common object of the
said unlawful assembly, this accused armed with long
attacked Diwan Ali thereby played active participation
in the commission of the murder of Diwan Ali thereby
accused committed offences punishable under Sections
143, 144, 147, 148, 324, 307, 302, 120-B read with
Section 149 of IPC
8.

The learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued
that the petitioner has not committed any offence as
alleged by the prosecution. He is innocent and without
any
material
the
petitioner
is
arrested
and
is
languishing in jail. Therefore, prayed to enlarge the
petitioner on bail.
9.

Per contra, the learned Public Prosecutor argued
that the
Investigating Officer investigated the matter
and filed the charge-sheet.

As per the records, the
accused No.2/petitioner was enlarged on bail, but due
to his non-appearance the warrant was issued and by
executing the NBW he was produced before the Court.

5
Crl.Misc.No.3210/2024
Hence, according to him, petitioner is not entitled for
bail. Hence, prayed to reject the bail application.
10. On perusal of the records produced by the
petitioner, it could be seen that the Investigating Officer
after investigation filed the charge-sheet against the
petitioner and others. As per the available records, the
accused No.2/petitioner was enlarged on bail on
21.12.2021, but due to his non-appearance the warrant
was
issued.

On
23.03.2024
accused
No.2
was
produced before the Court by executing the NBW and
since then he is in custody.

As noted supra, the bail
was granted to the accused No.2, but he has violated
the bail bond conditions and misused the bail granted
to him. The presence of the accused No.2 has been
secured by executing the NBW. In view of execution of
NBW the petitioner liable to the pay the bail bond
amount executed by him while enlarging him on bail
but he has not paid the bail bond amount. Having
regards to the facts and circumstances of the case,
nature and gravity of the accusation, severity of
punishment, in the event of conviction and the manner
in which the accused No.2, violating the bail conditions
and not paid the bail bond amount, it is not safe to
6
Crl.Misc.No.3210/2024
grant bail to the accused No.2. If the accused No.2 is
enlarged on bail he may abscond and thereby the trial
may hamper.

Hence, it is not fit case to exercise the
discretion in favor of the accused No.2. For the foregoing
reasons, I answer this point in the negative.
11. Point No.2:- In view of my findings on point No.1,
I proceed to pass the following;
ORDER
The regular bail application filed by
accused No.2/petitioner u/s 439 of Cr.P.C. is
hereby rejected.
(Dictated to the Stenographer Grade-I directly on Computer, typed
by her, taken print out, corrected by me and then pronounced in
the open Court on this the 7th day of May 2024)
(A.V.PATIL)
I/c LXIV ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS
JUDGE (CCH-65), BENGALURU CITY.