1
Cri.Misc.588/2023
KABC010018262023
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS
JUDGE AT BENGALURU
Dated this the 21st day of January, 2023
Present
Sri Ramachandra D. Huddar, B.Com, L.L.M.
Prl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS NO. 588/2023
PETITIONER
Mr. Thosif @ Thosif Pasha. S.
S/o. Sikandar
Aged about 29 years,
No.264, 36th Cross, East End Main,
Devaraj Urs Colony,
Jayanagara
Bengaluru 560 069
(Accused No.3)
(Sri. Arun Kumar Dhanvanthri,
Advocate)
V/s.
RESPONDENT
State of Karnataka by
Koramangala Police
(Public Prosecutor)
***
ORDER
1)
Petitioner has filed this petition under Section 439 of
Cr.P.C. seeking regular bail in Cr.No.507/2014 registered as C.C.
2
Cri.Misc.588/2023
No.22718/2022 pending on the file of XLI ACMM, Bengaluru for
the offence punishable under Section 120B r.w.s. 397 of Indian
Penal Code.
2)
The facts so stated by the petitioner leading to filing
this petition are as under :-
3)
That, the Koramangala Police registered crime against
accused persons for the offence under Section 120B, and 397 of
IPC alleging that, accused No.1 to 6 conspired to commit dacoity.
It is further stated in complaint that, on 15/7/2014 when C.W.1
was proceeding to Star Bazar, Koramangala in TATA ACE bearing
No.KA-51-B-1297 in order to unload fruits, at about 10.00 a.m.
near Anthony Church, at Madivala Check Post on Hosur road,
two unknown persons came in a scooty and told to stop the
vehicle. C.W.1 without heeding to their words proceeded and near
KEB Office, BMTC bus stop they overtook C.W.1 vehicle and
stopped the same. It is alleged that, they snatched Karbon mobile
phone of C.W.1 and dddriven the fruit loaded vehicle by pointing
knife at him.
3
Cri.Misc.588/2023
4)
Based upon that, a complaint is registered in the
aforesaid crime and now police have charge-sheeted against the
accused persons. Accused No.2 and 3 did not appear before the
court. The records of this case do reveal that, the case against
accused No.2 and 3 has been split-up.
5)
It is further stated that, accused No.3 voluntarily
appeared before the XLI ACMM Court and filed an application
under Section 70(2) of Cr.P.C. to recall orders by virtue of the
orders passed by this court in Cri.Misc. 11961/2022 wherein,
accused No.1 was given liberty to appear before the court by
surrendering himself and seek regular bail. The said application
came to be rejected. Now the said petitioner is taken to judicial
custody. Therefore, the petitioner is seeking regular bail on the
following grounds.
6)
That, he is innocent and has not committed any
offence. Though the alleged offence is non-bailable, but not
punishable with death or imprisonment for life. He is ready to
abide by the conditions that may be imposed by the court. As the
4
Cri.Misc.588/2023
investigation is completed, the presence of the petitioner is not
required for interrogation. Hence, it is prayed to grant bail.
7)
Pursuant to the notice being issued, the learned
Public Prosecutor appeared before the court and opposed the bail
petition by filing detailed objection statement. In addition to
narrating the gist of the complaint, it is contended that, on
19/12/2014, accused No.1 and 4 have been arrested. It is alleged
that, they have committed offence under Section 397 of IPC by
snatching mobile phone and taking away the vehicle at the point
of knife. Police have filed charge-sheet by collecting evidence.
Therefore, if the petitioner is granted bail, he may flee from justice
and tamper the prosecution evidence.
He may repeat similar
offence. Hence, it is prayed to reject the bail petition.
8)
Heard the arguments of both sides. Meticulously,
perused the records.
9)
The points that arise for my consideration are :1. Whether petitioner has made out
acceptable
grounds
to
regular bail as prayed for?
grant
him
5
Cri.Misc.588/2023
2. What order?
10)
My answer to the above points are as follows :POINT NO.1
:-
In the Affirmative,
POINT NO.2
:-
As per final order
for the following
REASONS
11)
POINT NO.1 :- The learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that, after issuance of NBW by XLI ACMM Bengaluru,
the petitioner approached this court seeking anticipatory bail by
filing Cri.Misc.No.11961/2022. He further submits that, by virtue
of orders dated 27/12/2022 passed by this court, as liberty was
given to approach XLI ACMM Bengaluru, he appeared before the
said court and filed application for recall of NBW. But, his
application came to be rejected by the said court on 18/1/2023
and consequently, the petitioner was taken to judicial custody. He
submits that, the grounds stated by the said court while rejecting
bail is that, the offence alleged against the accused is nonbailable and it is exclusively triable by the court of Sessions.
12)
Though the offence so alleged against the petitioner is
non-bailable, but not punishable with death or imprisonment for
6
Cri.Misc.588/2023
life. The case is triable by the Sessions Court. The law is that, bail
is a rule and jail is an exception. Mere granting of bail will not
amounts to acquittal or rejection of bail will not amounts to
conviction of accused. Liberty of a person cannot be curtailed by
sending him behind the bars. With regard to granting of
anticipatory bail, law is very much settled in a judgment of
Supreme Court of India reported in the case of Gudikanti
Narasimhulu
case
(1978)
1
S.C.C.
240,
Hon’ble
Justice
V.R.Krishna Iyer has held as under:-
“The issue of bail is one of liberty,
justice, public safety and burden of the
public treasury, all of which insist that a
developed jurisprudence of bail is integral
to a socially sensitized judicial process”.
13. Police have filed charge-sheet and it is registered in C.C.
22718/2022 pending on the file of XLI ACMM, Bengaluru. That
means, the presence of the petitioner is not required for any
further interrogation by the police.
In view of all these factual
features, petitioner is held entitled for bail, but with conditions. If
conditions are imposed, it would satisfy the objections raised by
7
Cri.Misc.588/2023
the prosecution and it would meet the ends of justice. Hence, I
record my finding on Point No.1 in the affirmative.
13)
POINT NO.2 :- Resultantly, I proceed to pass the
following :ORDER
Application filed by the petitioner under
Section 439 of Cr.P.C is allowed.
Petitioner is enlarged on bail in C.C.
No.22718/2022
of
Koramangala
Police
Station, on obtaining a personal bond for a
sum of Rs.50,000/- from him with one
surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of
the XLI ACMM Bengaluru on the following
conditions :1. He shall appear before the court on all
hearing dates.
2. He shall not tamper the prosecution
witnesses.
3. He shall not get himself involved in similar
nature of offences.
4. He shall not leave the jurisdiction of the
court without prior permission.
8
Cri.Misc.588/2023
Breach of any of these conditions would
entail cancellation of the bail.
(Dictated to the Judgment Writer, transcribed and typed by him, revised,
corrected and then signed by me in the open court, on this the 21 st day of
January, 2023.)
(RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR)
Prl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru. sheet?