KABC010081252024 IN THE COURT OF THE LXII ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY [CCH.63] Dated : This the 30 th d ay of March, 2024. PRESENT Present: Sri. A. EARANNA, M.Com., LLM., LXII Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City. Crl.Misc.No. 2890/2024 Petitioner : Mr. Raja @ Kuttiyan S/o Thangaraju Aged about 31 years R/at Near Mariyamma Temple, Ragigudda Quarters, JP Nagar, 2nd Phase, Bengaluru City Karnataka-560 078 (Accused No.2 in JC) [Sri. Santhosh A, Advocate] Vs. Respondent : State of Karnataka, By JP Nagar Police Station, Bengaluru. [By : Public Prosecutor] O R D E R This is a petition filed by the petitioner under Sec.439 of Cr.P.C. seeking grant of bail. 2 Crl.Misc.No. 2890/2024

2. On the strength of complaint the Rajgopalanagar

police have registered the case in Crime No. 299/2015 for the offence punishable U/S. 399 and 402 of I.P.C. After completion of investigation the respondent police have filed the charge sheet and case committed in SC No.967/2016.

3. In the bail petition it is contended that, the

petitioner is innocent of the alleged offences. He has been falsely implicated in the case on hand. Since from date of arrest the petitioner are in Judicial custody. The petitioner hail from respectable family and he has got deep root in the society. The petitioner is permanent resident of his address shown in the cause title of petition, as such he will not abscond in case of grant of bail. The respondent police after completion of investigation have already filed the charged sheet and the Case committed to the sessions Court. The petitioner is no more required to the respondent police for investigation or interrogation. The petitioner is ready and willing to abide by any conditions that may be imposed by the Court and he is ready to offer surety to ensure his regular attendance before the concerned Court. Inter-alia, on these grounds, the petitioner pray to allow the bail petition.

4. Per contra, the learned Public Prosecutor filed

objection by contending that, the charge sheet materials prima facie shows that the petitioner has committed the offence punishable under Sections 399 and 402 of Indian Penal Code. 3 Crl.Misc.No. 2890/2024 The petitioner not appeared before the Court and Court has issued NBW against him. On execution of NBW petitioner has been arrested by the respondent police and he is in judicial custody. If the petitioner is released on bail, at this stage, there is possibility of petitioner committing similar kind of offence and there is also every possibility of petitioner threatening the prosecution witnesses and the possibility of petitioner' abscondance cannot be ruled out. Inter alia, on these grounds, the learned Public Prosecutor prays to reject the bail petition.

5. Heard both sides. Perused the records.

6. Following points arise for consideration of this

Court:

1. Whether the petitioner has made out substantial or reasonable ground to enlarge them on bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C.?

2. What Order?

7. My findings on the above points are as follows:-

Point No.1 : In the Affirmative; Point No.2 : As per final order, for the following:- R E A S O N S

8. Point No.1 :- The learned Counsel for the

petitioner argued that the petitioner have not committed any 4 Crl.Misc.No. 2890/2024 offences, he is falsely implicated in the case. The petitioner is ready to abide by the conditions imposed by this Court. The alleged offences are not punishable with death or imprisonment for life. The petitioner is in Judicial custody from the date of his arrest. Hence the petitioner prays to allow the bail application.

9. On the other hand Learned Public Prosecutor

argued that the case is under investigation. If the petitioner is released on bail, then there is chances of hampering and tampering of prosecution witnesses, there is a chances of threat the prosecution witnesses, there is chances of abscond from the case and he will commit similar kind of offences cannot be ruled out. Along with other grounds prosecution prays for rejection of the bail application.

10. On going through the prosecution case, on

14.05.2015 at about 21.00 hours, while the complainant was at his station at that time, the complainant received a credible information that at Near Spice Up Hotel, 9th Cross, J.P. Nagar 2nd Phase, Bengaluru within the limits of respondent station 6 persons assembled unlawfully and equipped with deadly weapons and planning to attack and loot the public who were coming on the same road, upon the said information the complainant along with his staff alleged to have been to the spot and found the accused persons and after observing their activities and hearing their discussion raided the spot and 5 Crl.Misc.No. 2890/2024 apprehended accused persons by surrounding them at the alleged spot etc., The respondent police have arraigned the present petitioner as accused No.2 who is remanded to judicial custody and produced before the 5th ACMM, Bengaluru. Petitioner released on bail. The case committed before the Court in SC No. 967/2016. The accused No.2 not appeared before the Court, in the meanwhile this Court issued NBW against the accused and arrested him and produced before the Court.

11. It is vehement arguments of the learned Counsel

for the petitioner that the petitioner has falsely implicated in the case. He is in the judicial custody. The respondent police have already filed the charge sheet. Further custodial detention is not warranted in the circumstances of the case. This petitioner was granted with bail and was attending the Court regularly. As the accused remained absent due to lack of communication and due to mobile misplacement and suffering from ill-health. The petitioner was not known about the split up charge sheet and also in committal stage he was absent and split up charge sheet was filed. Therefore the counsel for the petitioner prays to allow the petition. The Prosecution opposed the plea of the petitioner contended in the petition. The petitioner has violated the bail conditions imposed by this Court. If the petitioner is granted with bail he may flee away from the justice. There are primafacie material available against him. 6 Crl.Misc.No. 2890/2024

12. On perusal of the records it is the contention of

the learned counsel for the petitioner that he has the petitioner has already been granted with bail. The offences alleged against the petitioner are not exclusively punishable with death or imprisonment for life. In the instant case, the petitioner has been already interrogated and after completion of investigation, the charge sheet has been filed and as such, the petitioner is not required for further investigation or interrogation. No purpose would be served by further detaining the petitioner in judicial custody. No substantial ground made out by the prosecution for further detaining the petitioner in judicial custody.

13. The court has to see in a case like the one on

hand what are the considerations to be decided while disposing an application filed U/S. 439 Cr.PC. 1) nature and seriousness of the offences, 2) character of the evidence 3) circumstances which are peculiar to the accused 4) reasonable probabilities of the presence of the accused not being secured at the trial 5) reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with 6) larger interests of the public or the state and similar other considerations, which arise when the court is asked to admit accused to bail in a non bailable offence. Further emphasis is laid on two important points namely likelihood of accused of fleeing from justice and tampering with prosecution evidence. (AIR 1962 SC 253 The State V/s Captain Jagjeet singh). 7 Crl.Misc.No. 2890/2024

14. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Central Bureau of

investigation Vs. V.Vijay Sai Reddy 2013 (7) SCALE 15 was pleased to express that; “28. While granting bail, the court has to keep in mind the nature of accusation, the nature of evidence in support thereof, the severity of the punishment which conviction will entail, the character of the accused, circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the accused at the trial, reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with, the larger interests of the public/ state and other similar consideration. It has also to be kept in mind that for the purpose of granting bail, the legislature has used the words ‘reasonable grounds for believing” instead of “the evidence” which means the court dealing with the grant of bail can only satisfy it as to whether there is a genuine case against the accused and that the prosecution will be able to produce prima facie evidence in support of the charge. It is not expected, at this stage, to have the evidence establishing the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

15. The petitioner claims to be permanent resident of

his address shown in the cause title of the bail petition. It is urged that the petitioner is ready and wiling to furnish surety to the satisfaction of the Court to ensure his regular attendance in the case and he is ready to abide by any of the conditions imposed by the Court. Hence the chance of abscondance of petitioner if released on bail is too remote. 8 Crl.Misc.No. 2890/2024

16. Having heard rival submissions on both the

sides, this Court finds no valid, good and compelling grounds to reject the bail at this stage to the petitioner. Considering the factual aspects of this case, without expressing any opinion with regard to merits and demerits of this case, this Court holds that it is just and proper to grant the bail as prayed to the petitioner. Taking into consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and the materials available on record, I am of the opinion that the petitioner has made out a case to allow the petition to grant regular bail and accordingly, I answer point No.1 in the affirmative.

17. Point No.2 :- In view of my finding on point

No.1, I proceed to pass the following:-

ORDER

The bail petition under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., filed by the petitioner is hereby allowed. The petitioner shall be released on bail on execution of his personal bond for Rs.1,00,000/- with one surety for like sum, in Crime No. 299/2015 of respondent police station (in SC No.967/2016), for the offence punishable U/s 399 and 402 on the following conditions: 9 Crl.Misc.No. 2890/2024

1. Petitioner shall appear before the

concerned Court on all hearing dates without fail except on unavoidable circumstances.

2. Petitioner shall not leave the

jurisdiction of the concerned Court without prior permission of the concerned Court.

3. Petitioner shall not threaten the

prosecution witnesses and he should not tamper the prosecution evidence and he shall not indulge himself in any offences of like nature.

4. In case, if petitioner violates any of

the above mentioned conditions, the prosecution is at liberty to move the application in such cases for cancellation of bail. (Dictated to the stenographer typed by her directly on computer, printout taken thereof is corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in open Court on this the 30th day of March, 2024). (A. EARANNA), LXII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City.