Crl.Misc.2935/2024 KABC010082782024 IN THE COURT OF THE LXVIII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY (CCH-69) Dated this the 18th day of April 2024 :PRESENT: Sri.Sabappa,B.Com.,LLB(Spl.) LXVIIIAddl.CityCivilandSessionsJudge, Bengaluru City. CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.2935/2024 PETITIONER : 1 Abishek @ Dharma, S/o. Anand, Aged about 27 years, R/at. No. 3, K.C.Nagalakshmi Building, 3rd Floor, Opp. Rajanandhini Hospital, Chuchaghatta Main Road, Bengaluru – 560 062. (A2) Native place at: Balethotanahalli village, Thali Taluk, Krishnagiri District, Tamil Nadu State, 2 Ganesh U.R @ Gani S/o. Late Umesha, Aged about 25 years, R/at. No. 963, 1st cross, Kaverinagar, Banashankari 2nd Stage, Bengaluru – 560 070. (A3) Crl.Misc.2935/2024 3 Kishor S @ Kachori, S/o. Shiva, Aged about 23 years, R/at. Near Tippu Circle, 1st Cross, Avalahalli, Bengaluru 560 062. (A5) (BySri. Kambesh.M, Adv.,) V/s RESPONDENT : State by; Puttenahalli Police Station, Bengaluru. (RepresentedbyPublicProsecutor) ORDER ON BAIL PETITION U/SEC.439 OF CR.P.C. This petition is filed by the petitioner under Sec.439 of Cr.P.C., seeking regular bail in connection with Cr.No.352/2023 (C.C.No.2441/2024) registered by the Puttenahalli Police, for the offence punishable under Secs.143, 147, 148, 302 r/w 149 of I.P.C.

2. The brief facts of the petitioner's case is that, the

respondent police have registered case in Crime No.352/2023 against the petitioner and others for the offences punishable Secs.143, 147, 148, 302 r/w 149 of I.P.C based on the complaint of one Smt. Soumya.M. The complainant alleged in the complaint that on 08/11/2023 her husband came to the house at 3.00 p.m after finishing the painting work and after having lunch again went out of the house and returned back at 6.30 p.m. He stayed in the house for Crl.Misc.2935/2024 5 minutes and again went out of the house. At about 8.30 p.m the complainant called to her husband over phone, he told that he will come after 20 minutes. At at about 9.10 p.m she called to her husband. But her husband did not pick the call. Thereafter, she called to her husband's friend Anand. He told that he will call later. Later on, her mother-in-law informed that someone has assaulted her husband Sahadev and he is taken to Supra Hospital. Then complainant immediately went to the hospital. On the way, she noticed bloods stains, cap and slippers of her husband at Eshwar Layout, 2nd Main Road Cross, near Lakshmi condiments. At that time, one Srinivas told her that her husband is taken to Victoria hospital because Supra Hospital were not given treatment. When she was on the way to Victoria Hospital, her sister Baby informed about the death of her husband Sahadev. Then she went to Victoria hospital and found that her husband was assaulted with weapons on his chest, rib and also assaulted on his head, forehead. She enquired Anand who was with her husband on that day. He told that at about 9.15 p.m he along with Sahadev were standing in Scooty vehicle near Lakshmi Condiments, 2nd Cross, Eshwar Layout. At that time one person came there and asked about Kalla Naveen to Sahadev. Then Sahadev told he knows Kalla Naveen. Then questioned for what reasons he is asking. At that time the said person assaulted with wooden stick on the head of the Sahadev and caused injury and other 4-5 persons assaulted with sharp weapons and bleeding injuries to the Sahadev. Hence, complainant lodged the complaint before the respondent police. During the course of Crl.Misc.2935/2024 investigation the petitioners were arrested by the respondent police and produced before the trial court. The petitioners are remanded to Judicial custody by the trial court. Since from the date of arrest they are in JC.

3. The grounds urged by the petitioners are as under.

The petitioners submitted that, they are innocent of the alleged offences, they have got valid and good tenable defence. They have been falsely implicated in the above case. They have no any connection with the said crime directly or indirectly. They have not present in the alleged spot. The said offences alleged against the petitioners are exclusively triable by this court. The petitioners are the only persons to take care of their old age parents who suffering from old age ailments. They are the only bread earner of their family members. There is no specific allegation against the petitioners in the remand application and in the complaint. The IO has not collected any implicating evidence against the petitioners. They hails from a respectable family and have no bad antecedents or previous convicts. The investigation is completed and respondent police have submitted the charge sheet. The petitioners are in J.C since from the date of their arrest. The entire materials do not make out any prima facie case. They are ready and willing to abide by any condition imposed by this Court. They are ready and willing to offer surety to the satisfaction of this court. Hence, they prays to allow the petition.

4. The learned Public Prosecutor has filed objections to the

bail petition along with the report of the P.I of Puttenahalli Police Crl.Misc.2935/2024 Station contending that, the grounds stated by the petitioners are far away from truth. In the objections the learned Public Prosecutor has narrated the facts as stated in the charge sheet. During the course of investigation, the I.O has recorded the voluntary statement of the accused persons. They have confessed that they have committed the alleged offences. Thereafter, the I.O has recovered vehicles, mobile phone and material objects from the possession of the accused persons which are used at the time of commission of the offence and subjected the same to P.F. The I.O. has conducted the panchanama in the presence of panchas. The present petitioners are involved in the alleged offence along with other accused persons. If the petitioners enlarged on bail, they may abscond, tamper the prosecution witnesses and hamper the evidence and it will give wrong signal to the society. 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 petitionerd have 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 : In the Affirmative, Point No.2 : As per final order, for the following; Crl.Misc.2935/2024 R E A S O N S

8. POINT No.1:- I have gone through the bail petition and

objection statement. It is noticed that the respondent police registered case in Cr.No.352/2023 against the petitioners and other accused persons for the offences punishable U/Secs.143, 147, 148, 302 r/w 149 of IPC. The petitioners are arrayed as accused No.2, 3 & 5 respectively in this case. It is the case of the petitioners that, they are innocent of the alleged offences. they are not involved in the commission of the alleged offences. The name of the petitioners are not found in the FIR on in the statement of the complainant or in the remand application. they are absolutely stranger to the alleged incident. they neither directly nor indirectly involved in the alleged incident. The investigation is completed and respondent police have submitted the charge sheet. The petitioners in J.C since from the date of their arrest. The FIR itself is doubtful and statement of witnesses recorded by the respondent police are not trustworthy. They are ready to abide by any conditions imposed by this court.

9. On the other hand, the prosecution contended that, the

petitioners are actively participated in the commission of the alleged offences. The petitioners and others with a common intention assaulted the deceased by deadly weapons. The petitioners and other accused persons quarreled with the deceased and assaulted the deceased with deadly weapons. Thereby, he succumbed to death. Moreover the offence U/Sec.302 of I.P.C. is punishable with death or imprisonment for life. It is a heinous offence. If case Crl.Misc.2935/2024 petitioners are enlarged on bail, they will try to abscond, tamper the prosecution witnesses and hamper the evidence and it will give wrong signal to the Society. Thereby, the petitioners have not made out any sufficient grounds to enlarge her on bail.

10. In the present case, the accused no. 1 i.e., Abishek @

Dharma, sustained injury on 04/10/2023 thereby he has taken treatment in the hospital. The medical records reveals that, the petitioner no. 1 underwent treatment it is reflected in the medical record. Overall, one thing is clear that, the 1st petitioner is under treatment. It is no doubt on the objection placed by the prosecution the respondent registered the case and secured the petitioners and recorded the voluntary statement. The respondent police sent samples to FSL department now they are going to receive the FSL report. It is further case is that, if the petitioners are enlarged on bail they may hamper and tampe the witnesses there are no material placed by the prosecution to show that, the petitioners are involved in the other criminal case mere stated in the objections statements is not sufficient

11. In this sort of allegation and counter allegation made by

both the sides, I would like to mention that, in the present case the petitioners are arrayed as accused No.2, 3 & 5. On perusal of the entire records and the grounds stated by the petitioners, it is noticed that, one Sowmya has lodged the complaint against 5-6 unknown persons regarding the death of her husband. Thereby, the respondent police registered the case and proceed with the Crl.Misc.2935/2024 investigation. In the meantime, the respondent police completed the investigation and submitted the final report against the petitioner and others. It is no doubt, the alleged offence U/Sec.302 of I.P.C. is triable by this Court. It is punishable with death or imprisonment for life. The petitioners are in J.C since the date of their arrest. The investigation is completed. Thereby, the petitioners are not required for further interrogation. Moreover, one of the co-accused is already enlarged on bail by this Court in Crl.Misc.1826/2024 and 1884/2024. At the initial stage, the complainant is not able to disclose the name of the petitioner and others. She has given complaint against 5-6 unknown persons. At the time of investigation the respondent police came to know that the present petitioners are also involved in the commission of the offence. But the materials on record reveals that, there are no materials recovered from the possession of the petitioners at the time of investigation. There are no eyewitness to the incident nor recorded the statement by the IO at the time of investigation. Thereby, at this stage, I am of the opinion that if the petitioners are enlarged on bail by putting some stringent conditions it will protect the interest of the prosecution. Moreover, the petitioners being the resident of Bengaluru, they are ready to abide by any conditions imposed by this Court. At this stage, this Court feels that, the petitioners have made out sufficient grounds to enlarge them on bail. It is pertinent to mention that bail is a rule, jail is exception. Hence, at this stage, I come to the conclusion that, if some stringent conditions are imposed while granting bail to the petitioner it will safeguard the interest of the prosecution. Otherwise, Crl.Misc.2935/2024 the family of the petitioners will be put to humiliation and hardship. Hence, for the above reasons and discussion, I answer Point No.1 in the Affirmative.

12. POINT NO.2: In view of my findings point No.1, I

proceed to pass the following: O R D E R Bail petition filed by the petitioners under Sec.439 of Cr.P.C is hereby allowed. Petitioners are ordered to be released on regular bail in connection with Cr.No.352/2023 (C.C.No. 2441/2024) on executing his personal bond for Rs.50,000/- each with two sureties for the likesum on the following conditions.

1. The petitioners shall appear before the trial

Court within 30 days from the date of this order.

2. The petitioners shall not tamper with the

Prosecution witnesses either directly or indirectly in any manner.

3. They shall regularly appear before the

concerned court as and when required.

4. They shall not abscond from the ordinary

residence and they should furnish the address proof to Crl.Misc.2935/2024 the concerned police.

5. They shall not indulge in any kind of offence.

6. They shall not leave the jurisdiction of the court

without prior permission. If any of the above conditions violates the I.O is at liberty to move for cancellation of bail. They are ordered to be released on bail if their custody does not required in any other case. (Dictated to the Stenographer, typed by her directly on Computer, revised, corrected and then pronounced by me in the open court on this the 18th day of April, 2024). (Sabappa) LXVIII Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City. Crl.Misc.2935/2024 ORDERS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT,VIDE SEPARATE ORDER Bail petition filed by the petitioners under Sec.439 of Cr.P.C is hereby allowed. Petitioners are ordered to be released on regular bail in connection with Cr.No.352/2023 (C.C.No. 2441/2024) on executing his personal bond for Rs.50,000/- each with two sureties for the likesum on the following conditions. Crl.Misc.2935/2024

1. The petitioners shall appear before the trial Court within 30 days from the date of this order.

2. The petitioners shall not tamper with the Prosecution witnesses either directly or indirectly in any manner.

3. They shall regularly appear before the concerned court as and when required.

4. They shall not abscond from the ordinary residence and they should furnish the address proof to the concerned police.

5. They shall not indulge in any kind of offence.

6. They shall not leave the jurisdiction of the court without prior permission.

If any of the above conditions violates the I.O is at liberty to move for cancellation of bail. They are ordered to be released on bail if their custody does not required in any other case. LXVIII A.C.C & S.J, Bengaluru City. Crl.Misc.2935/2024