Crl.Misc No.9026/2022 IN THE COURT OF LXIX ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH70) Present: Sri Rajesh Karnam K., B.Sc., LL.B.,LL.M., LXIX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru. Dated this the 27th day of September, 2022 Crl. Misc. No.9026/2022 PETITIONER : Mohammed Usman s/o Sadiq Pasha, 22 years, r/at Devis road Near Firdosh Masjid, Tyani road, Shivajinagar, Bangalore. Vs RESPONDENT: State of Karnataka By KG nagar P.S. Bengaluru. (By Public Prosecutor) ORDER ON BAIL PETITION FILED U/SEC. 439 OF CR.P.C. This bail application is filed by the petitioner/accused seeking bail as he has been allegedly committed offence punishable u/secs. 397 355 of IPC in Cr. No. 34/2020CC No. 9466/2021 of KG nagar P.S.
2. The petitioner submits that, he is innocent of the offence alleged offence and he has not committed any offence, the Crl.Misc No.9026/2022
respondentpolice have falsely implicated him in the above case. The accused is not properly identified, the bike was seized by the iO. There is no motive or ill will to the petitioner to commit the alleged offence. The investigation is completed and the charge sheet is filed. The petitioner submits that he is ready and willing to abide by any conditions that would be imposed on him by this Hon'ble Court. He is permanent resident of the address stated in the cause title and they will not flee away from the jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court. Hence there is no question of absconding during the investigation or otherwise and there is no criminal antecedents and have not been convicted by any court as such the petitioner is entitled to the relief of bail. With these contentions petitioner prays for grant of bail.
3. After service of notice the learned Public Prosecutor filed
objections and opposed the grant of bail and contended that the accused has committed robbery. IO has submitted CD wherein it is submitted that the jurisdictional Cubbon Park police registered Cr. No. 60/2022 , similarly even Devanahalli Police registered Cr. No. 50/2021 is also registered. Therefore the accused is involved in multiple cases. Even if the bail is grante dhe will involve in similar offences. Therefore the purpose of granting bail will not serve the interest of justice. Therefore, the bail cannot be granted.
4. Heard the arguments of both sides and perused the
available materials on records.
5. The points that arise for my consideration are as under: Crl.Misc No.9026/2022
1. Whether petitioner is entitled for bail under Sec.439 of Cr.P.C.?
2. What order?
6. My finding on the above points are as follows: Point No.1: In the negative
Point No.2: As per final order for the following;
REASONS
7. On going through the material on record it depicts that the respondentpolice registered Cr. No.34/2020 against the
accused for the offence punishable u/sec. 397, 355 of IPC. It is alleged that on 15.5.2020 at about 5.30 am when the complainant was proceeding by walk near Indira Canteen near KG nagar main road, 2 unknown persons came in a pulsar bike and snatched mobile phone from the complainant and fled away from the spot. Accordingly case is registered. The petitioner submit that he has not committed any offence, he is in JC since from the date of arrest. The petitioner submits the offences alleged are not exclusively punishable with with death or imprisonment for life, the petitioner hails from respectable family and bread earner, as such may be released on bail on any of the conditions. the investigation is completed and the charge sheet is filed.
8. On perusal of the compliant it is found that the
respondent Police registered Crime No.34/2020 against the Crl.Misc No.9026/2022 accused/petitioner. It is alleged in the complaint that the accused robbed mobile phone. On going through the material on record the petitioner is involved in many cases is evident from the material on record . Secondly the proclamation was issued by the trial court to the accused. The allegations made against the accused are he is involved in other cases also , therefore there are no grounds made out to grant bail to the accused. There are clinching primafacie materials not to consider the bail application of the accused. Hence the petitioner do not deserves for grant of regular bail. Accordingly this point is answered accordingly.
9. Point No.2: By considering the above over all reasons this court proceed to pass the following;
ORDER
Bail petition filed under Sec. 439 of Cr.P.C. by the Petitioner is hereby rejected. (Dictated to the JW, transcript thereof is corrected, signed and pronounced by me in open court on this the 27th day of September, 2022) Digitally signed by KESHAVRAO RAJESH KARNAM KESHAVRAO DN:KARNAM,ou=PRINCIPLEcn=KESHAVRAO RAJESHJUDGE RAJESH KARNAM FAMILYOF TREASURIES,st=Karnataka,c=INCOURT BALLARI,o=DIRECTOR Date: 2022.10.22 13:54:02 IST (Rajesh Karnam.K.) 69th Addl.C.C. & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.