1
Crl.Misc.No.6075/2022
IN THE COURT OF THE LIX ADDL.CITY CIVIL &
SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH-60) AT BENGALURU)
Dated this 7th day of July, 2022
-: P R E S E N T :Sri.Sadananda Nagappa Naik,B.A.L, L.L.B.,
LIX ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, CCH-60
BENGALURU CITY.
Crl. Misc.No.6075/2022
PETITIONER:
Accused
Sri. Umesh @ Umesh Katak
S/o Gulab Bai Katik,
Aged about 26 years,
R/at No. A/52, Sonalipark,
Near Vishwakarma Temple Road,
Chandodliya,
Ahmadabad Nagar District
Gujarath State.
Permanent R/at No. D/38,
Lakhudi Talavadi Housing Society,
Sardar Patel Stadium Road,
Narayanapura,
Ahmadabad Nagar District
Gujarath State.
(Accused is in judicial custody)
(By Sri.Kumaregowda. H.N.C Adv)
-V/s-
RESPONDENT:
State of Karnataka by
C.K. Acchukattu Police Station,
Bengaluru.
(By Learned Public Prosecutor)
2
Crl.Misc.No.6075/2022
ORDER
The petitioner/accused have filed this petition under Section
439 of Cr.P.C. for grant of regular bail in Crime No.309/2021, of
C.K.Acchukattu Police Station, Bangalore, on the file of 2nd
ACMM, Bangalore, which has been registered for the offences
punishable under section 397 of IPC.
2. The petitioner has contended that the police have
registered case against him for the 397of IPC. He is innocent and
he has not committed any offences as alleged in the complaint, the
police have registered a false case. He is totally stranger to the
alleged crime. He hail from respectable family and have got deep
roots in the society. He is ready to furnish the surety to the
satisfaction of the court, and he is ready to abide by any of the
conditions that may be imposed on him. On these grounds the
petitioners sought for regular bail.
3.
The prosecution opposed the bail petition on the
ground that there are sufficient materials to show that the
petitioner has committed the alleged offences which are heinous
in nature. Therefore, if bail is granted at this stage, he may
commit similar offences, there is every chance of absconding,
threatening the prosecution witnesses, flee from justice and
destroying the evidence and accordingly prayed for rejection of
the petition.
4.
5.

Heard arguments of both sides and perused the records.
The only point that arises for my consideration is:
“Whether the petitioners/accused is entitled
for regular bail?”
6.
My finding to the above point is in the Negative, for
the following:
3
Crl.Misc.No.6075/2022
REASONS
7. It is the case of the prosecution as could be seen from
the records that on 26.12.2021, at about 2.15Pm, while coming
back from visiting her sister house, when the complainant was
walking near 3rd cross, brand factory, 100 feet road, 3rd stage
Banashankari, unkown persons came in their two wheeler and
snatched Mangalya chain weighing around 30 grams and escaped
from the spot. Upon the basis of information, FIR came to be field in
Crime No. 309/2021.During the investigation, the respondent Police
arrested the accused.
8. The counsel for petitioner has argued that petitioner is
innocent and he has not committed any offences as alleged in the
complaint, the police have registered a false case. He is totally
stranger to the alleged crime. He hail from respectable family and
have got deep roots in the society. He is ready to furnish the surety
to the satisfaction of the court, and he is ready to abide by any of
the conditions that may be imposed on him. On these grounds the
petitioners sought for regular bail.
9. The learned public prosecutor has argued that there are
sufficient materials to show that the petitioner has committed the
alleged offences which are heinous in nature. Therefore, if bail is
granted at this stage, he may commit similar offences, there is
every chance of absconding, threatening the prosecution witnesses,
flee from justice and destroying the evidence and accordingly
prayed for rejection of the petition.
10. Considering the present bail application, the Court is
normally required to consider the following aspects:
i) the nature and seriousness of the accusation
ii) severity of the offence
4
Crl.Misc.No.6075/2022
iii)nature of the evidence collected and the character and
behaviour of the accused
iv) chances of the accused absconding and not being available
during the trial
v) possibility of repetition of such crime
vi)chances of the accused of tampering with the evidence and
witnesses and
vii) larger interest of the people and the State.
11.

From the allegations in the FIR and from the
statement of objections filed by the Public Prosecutor, it can be
seen that though the complaint is filed against unknown person,
the police have seized the material objects at the instance of
accused.

IO report discloses that there are many case filed
against the accused person. The Accused is resident of Gujarath.
If the accused is enlarged on bail, the apprehensions of the police
that he will flee from justice cannot be ruled out. Further, it will
hamper the progress of trail. Therefore, the
petitioner is not
entitled for bail. Accordingly, I answer point No.1 in the negative.
In the result, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
The petition filed by the petitioner under section
439 of Cr.P.C., is hereby rejected.
(Dictated to the Stenographer directly on computer, typed by him, corrected,
signed and then pronounced by me in the open court on this the 7 th day of July
2022).

LIX ADDL. C.C. & SESSIONS JUDGE,
BENGALURU CITY.