KABC010083392024 IN THE COURT OF XLV ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY (CCH-46) DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF APRIL, 2024 PRESENT: Sri Manjunatha, B.A., LL.B., XLV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru. CRL.MISC. No.2951/2024 Petitioner Balaji.S S/o Subramani, a/a 27 Yrs., r/a No.235, 5th Main, lakshmidevinagar, Nandini Layout, Bangalore North, Bengaluru-560 096. (By Sri/Smt; H. N. Venkatesh, Adv., ) AND Respondent State by Nandini Layout P.S., Bengaluru. (By the learned Public Prosecutor) ORDER ON BAIL PETITION FILED U/S.438 OF Cr.P.C., The learned counsel for the Petitioner has filed bail petition U/s.438 of Cr.P.C., to grant anticipatory bail in favour of the Petitioner and also direct the Respondent Police to release him on bail in the event of his arrest in their Crime No.101/2017 in the interest of justice. 2 Crl.Misc.No.2951/2024

2. The brief facts of the bail petition is that on the basis

of the information of Smt.E.Hemalatha, a/a 43 Yrs., the Respondent Police have registered case against the Petitioner in Crime No.101/2017 for the offences punishable U/s.324, 354 and 506 of IPC. The Petitioner being accused is apprehending his arrest by the Respondent Police and constrained to file this petition to grant bail.

3. The learned Public Prosecutor has filed objection in

detail by reiterating the contents of the Complaint and contended that this bail petition is not maintainable in law or on facts of the case. Accordingly, prayed for rejection of bail petition.

4. Heard the arguments on both sides. Perused the

relevant materials on record.

5. The following points are arises for consideration of this

Court:

1. Whether the Petitioner has made out sufficient

grounds for granting Anticipatory bail in his favour in Cr.No.101/2017 of Nandini Layout P.S.,atthisstageassoughtfor? 2.Whatorder?

6. This court has answered the above points are as

under: PointNo.1 : IntheAffirmative PointNo.2 : Asperfinalorder forthefollowing:- 3 Crl.Misc.No.2951/2024 R E A S O N S

7. Point No.1: On considering the papers on record, it is

evident to note that the Respondent Police have registered a case against the Petitioner in Crime No.101/2017 for the offences punishable U/s.324, 354 and 506 of IPC on the Complaint of Smt.E. Hemalatha, a/a 43 Yrs., And after completion of investigation the respondent police have submitted charge sheet against the petitioner before the jurisdictional Court for the offences punishable U/s.324, 354 and 506 of IPC. It is the case of the prosecution that the informant is having house near MES English School, Parvathinagar, laggere within the limits of Nandini Layout P.S., Bangalore, and she gave one of the house to the accused on rent. On 16.03.2017 informant had been to the said house to collect rent, and on while asking for rent at about 12.00 noon at II Floor, the accused picked up quarrel with the informant dragged her by hold her saree, and assaulted her with club on her left hand, caused bleeding injuries, and when CW.4 enquire the accused told that until decide of case filed before Hon’ble High Court, if she demanded for rent and visiting of her near the said houses, threatened her with dire consequences by outraging her modesty in public. Accordingly, the complainant has filed complaint before respondent police against the accused persons.

8. The contention of petitioner is that he is innocent of the

offences alleged against him and he has not committed any such offences. but, as submitted by the learned Prosecutor, the respondent police after completion of investigation submitted 4 Crl.Misc.No.2951/2024 charge sheet against the petitioner, and hence, at this stage, this court cannot come to the conclusion that the petitioner is are innocent of the offences alleged.

9. It is pertinent to note that even for the sake of

argument, it is accepted that there is prima facie case against the petitioner for the offences punishable U/s.324, 354 and 506 of IPC. Offence U/s.354 of IPC is though non-bailable, but it is triable by the Magistrate Court. 10.It is well settled principle of law that the granting of bail is discretionary power of the Court and every case should be considered on the basis of facts of each case. The order sheet, FIR, complaint and charge sheet produced by the petitioner discloses that there is an apprehension that the petitioner might be arrested in non-bailable offences for interrogation by the respondent police for enquiry. It is pertinent to note that the petitioner has produced sufficient material to show that interrogation of the petitioner is not at all required for the alleged offences as shown in the FIR and charge sheet. Further, it is equally important to note the the respondent police have completed the investigation and filed charge sheet against the petitioner for the alleged offences. In view of that, it is found that the interrogation of the petitioner is not at all required. Further, as per the materials on record, it is clear that the petitioner has produced the certified copies of order sheet, Complaint, FIR and charge sheet in support of his contention. On perusal of the documents, would shows that after filing of charge sheet, concerned Magistrate has issued process against the petitioner. The chance of petitioner tampering the 5 Crl.Misc.No.2951/2024 prosecution witnesses, as contended by the prosecution in the objection would be met with by imposing stringent conditions. or the said reasons and discussions, denying anticipatory bail to the petitioner does not arise. 11.Whether the petitioner has committed the offences as contended by the complainant is a matter, which has to be decided only at the time of full-fledged trial. At this juncture, when the petitioner is ready to abide by the terms and conditions imposed by the court and when he is ready to face the trail and offer due and adequate surety for his release on bail, then this court is of the opinion that no purpose will be served by allowing the respondent police to apprehend the petitioner and to keep him in custody. On perusal of the documents, would shows that the respondent police have completed the investigation and absconding charge sheet has been filed against the petitioner. The objections raised by the learned Public Prosecutor can be met by imposing stringent conditions. The petitioner is the permanent residents as shown in the cause title and this fact has not been disputed by the prosecution, as such the presence of petitioner can be secured easily, hence, the question of absconding of the petitioner does not arise at all. The objections raised by the learned Public Prosecutor can be met by imposing stringent conditions. There is absolutely no any special ground made out by the prosecution to reject this bail petition. Accordingly, under these circumstances, the petitioner has made out sufficient ground for granting anticipatory bail in his favour at this stage as prayed for as there exist reason to believe that he may be arrested in non6 Crl.Misc.No.2951/2024 bailable offences. Accordingly, I answer Point No.1 in the affirmative.

12. Point No.2: In view of answer of this Court on point

No.1, this court pass the following:- O R D E R The bail petition filed by the petitioner U/s.438 of Cr.P.C. is hereby allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on their executing personal bond for Rs.1,00,000/- with two sureties for like sum to the satisfaction of the concerned Magistrate/I.O., in the event of his arrest in the case in Crime No.101/2017 in CC No.14009/2018 of Nandini Layout P. S., subject to the conditions that: 1.He shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/ her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to the concerned I.O., 2.He shall not tamper with prosecution witnesses in any manner. He shall not intimidate the complainant. 3.He shall not commit similar offences or any offence in future, 4.He shall appear before the concerned Magistrate court as and when directed, 5.He shall furnish this residential id address proofs, and 7 Crl.Misc.No.2951/2024 6.He shall appear before VII Addl., CMM., Court, Bengaluru, within 15 days from the date of this order, failing which the order stands canceled. 7.In the event of violation of any of the above conditions, the above bail shall stand automatically canceled. (Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer directly on Computer, corrected by me and then pronounced in open Court on this the 4th day of April, 2024) (Manjunatha) XLV Addl. CC & SJ, Bengaluru. Digitally signed by MANJUNATH MANJUNATHRAMA NAIK RAMA NAIK Date: 2024.04.10 16:23:26 +0530 8 Crl.Misc.No.2951/2024 Order pronounced in the open court vide its separate order O R D E R The bail petition filed by the petitioner U/s.438 of Cr.P.C. is hereby allowed. (Manjunatha) XLV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.