1
Crl.Misc.5978/2022
IN THE COURT OF THE LXVIII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL
AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY (CCH-69)
Dated this the 28th day of June 2022
:PRESENT:
Sri.Sabappa, B.Com., LLB (Spl.)
LXVIII Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru City.
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.5978/2022
PETITIONER :
Tejas.M, S/o Murthy,
Aged about 20 years,
Residing at No.276,
Tirumalappa Nagar,
Yelahanka New Town,
Attur, Bangalore – 560 064.
(By Sri. S.J. Kumar, Adv.,)
V/s
RESPONDENT
:
State by;
Rajagopalanagar Police Station,
Bengaluru.
(Represented by Public Prosecutor)
ORDER ON BAIL PETITION U/SEC.439 OF CR.P.C.
This petition is filed under Sec.439 of Cr.P.C., on
behalf of the petitioner, seeking regular bail in connection
2
Crl.Misc.5978/2022
with Cr.No.449/2021 (C.C.No.7981/2022) registered by
the Rajagopalanagar Police, for the offences punishable
under Secs.392 and 397 of I.P.C.
2.

The brief facts of the petitioner’s case is that,
on 26-11-2021 at about 9 PM one Sri.Akash Hejra filed a
complaint against two unknown persons alleging that he
went to throw the office garbage in Pulsar Bike bearing
No.KA-41-EB-9062 about 200 meter from his office along
with office boy Ujwal Bagdhi and while he was dumping the
garbage two unknown persons came in two wheeler and
pillion rider of the said vehicle threatened the complainant
by showing knife and abused him in filthy language and
assaulted with hands on his left eye and forcibly asked him
and Ujwal Bagdhi to get down from the bike and asked him
to handover the key of the Pulsar bike and complainant
being afraid has handed over the key to the unknown
persons and they taken the bike and fled away. On the
basis of the complaint, the respondent police registered FIR
against
unknown
persons.

After
completion
of
the
investigation the respondent police filed charge sheet
against the accused persons.
3. The grounds urged by the petitioner are as under.
It is submitted that, he is innocent of the alleged
offences. There is no allegation against the petitioner in the
3
complaint.

The
charge
sheet
Crl.Misc.5978/2022
came
to
be
filed
on
04.03.2022. After filing of the charge sheet the petitioner
has been arrested and sent to J.C on 11.06.2022. At the
time of filing the charge sheet, the respondent police have
shown the petitioner as absconding. The petitioner is a
resident of Attur Village. Petitioner is not acquainted with
accused No.1. The complaint was lodged on 27.11.2021.
The charge sheet was filed on 04.03.2022. Right from the
date of lodging the compliant till 11.06.2022 the petitioner
was not aware of the complaint. Petitioner is studying in
Shridevi Polytechnic, Sira Road, Tumkur at present. Already
investigation is completed and charge sheet is filed. He has
not committed any offence as alleged in the FIR and charge
sheet. He is a student and his life would be affected if bail
is denied. The police have falsely implicated him in this
case. He is ready to abide by any condition imposed by this
Court. Hence, he prays to allow the petition.
4.

The
learned
Public
Prosecutor
has
filed
objections to the bail petition contending that, the grounds
stated by the petitioner are far away from truth. In the
objections the learned Public Prosecutor has narrated the
facts as stated in the FIR. It is further contended that on
enquiry by the police, the accused No.2/petitioner revealed
that he along with accused No.1 have committed the
alleged offences. This petitioner is also involved in
4
Crl.Misc.5978/2022
Cr.No.298/2021 of Yelahanka police station. Petitioner is
involved in robbery cases. He is a rowdy sheeter of
Yelahanka police station. Several cases are registered
agaisnt the petitioner in Sarjapura P.S, Gowribidanoor P.S,
Doddaballapura P.S, Dibburahalli P.S and Yelahanka P.S. If
the petitioner is granted bail, there is every chance that he
may abscond, tamper the prosecution witnesses and
hamper the evidence. Therefore, the P.P has sought for
rejection of bail.
5.

Heard both sides. Perused the materials on
record.
6. The points that arise for my consideration are:
1. Whether the petitioner has made out
sufficient grounds for grant of regular
bail U/Sec.439 of Cr.P.C as sought for?
2. What order?
7.

My findings to the above points are as follows:
Point No.1 :
Point No.2 :
In the Negative,
As per final order,
for the following;
REASONS
8.

POINT No.1:
I have gone through the bail
petition, objection statement and records. It is the case of
the petitioner that he has totally innocent and he has not
5
Crl.Misc.5978/2022
committed any offence. The respondent police have falsely
implicate him as accused.

He is studying in Shridevi
Polytechnic, Sira Road, Tumkur.

On the contrary the
prosecution in the objection contending that petitioner is
an habitual offender, he is involved in so many cases. The
F.I.R. statement and previous records are clearly indicates
this petitioner is habitual offender.

On perusal of the
objection statement this petitioner involved in about 6
cases
in
different
police
station
regarding
offence
punishable U/Secs.392, 395, 397, 399 & 402 of IPC etc.
This indicates that petitioner is not the law abiding citizen.
He is habitual offender. In case this court enlarge him on
bail likely he has committed similar offences, it will affect
the society at large moreover the public at large. The case
against the petitioner is for the offences punishable
U/Secs.392 & 397 of IPC. The alleged offences are triable
by this Court. The alleged offences are punishable with
Rigorous Imprisonment for 10 years and 7 years. Mere
submitting of charge sheet is not a ground to enlarge the
petitioner on bail. There are so many antecedents against
the petitioner. In other cases also the petitioner is required
for interrogation. Thereby, in my opinion the prosecution
has rightly pointed out that this petitioner is habitual
offender, he is not having any suitable reason to enlarge
him on bail. In case this court enlarge him on bail he try to
6
Crl.Misc.5978/2022
abscond and not able to appear before the court.

The
alleged offence committed by the accused/petitioner is
heinous offence, it is further noticed that I.O. has rightly
submitted the detail report and mentioned about 6 cases
pending against the petitioner in different police station
and accused person is not having any good records to
enlarge him on bail. This indicates that there are so many
cases are pending against this accused. These facts are not
disputed by the petitioner’s counsel during the course of
arguments.

At this juncture this court feels that there are
no material to grant bail to the petitioner.

Thereby the
reasons assigned by petitioner’s counsel is not acceptable
to enlarge him on bail. There is every chance of abscond
and commit similar offences by the petitioner.

Hence, I
have answered it in the Negative.
9.
POINT NO.2: In view of my findings point No.1,
I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
Bail petition filed by the petitioner under
Sec. 439 of Cr.P.C is hereby rejected.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, typed by her directly on Computer,
revised, corrected and then pronounced by me in the open court on this the
28th day of June 2022)
[
(Sabappa)
LXVIII Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru City.

7
Crl.Misc.5978/2022
d
ORDERS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN
COURT, VIDE SEPARATE ORDER
Bail petition filed by the petitioner under
Sec. 439 of Cr.P.C is hereby rejected.

LXVIII A.C.C & S.J,
Bengaluru City.

8
Crl.Misc.5978/2022
9
Crl.Misc.5978/2022