1 Crl. Misc. No. 2829/2024 KABC010079312024 IN THE COURT OF THE LXII ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY [CCH.63] Dated this the 1 st day of April, 2024 Present: Sri. A. EARANNA, M.Com., L.L.M., LXII Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City. CRL. MISC. No. 2829/2024 Petitioner/s : Mr. Santhosh @ Santu S/o Raja Aged about 26 years R/at Near Kempamma Mess MS Building, KR circle, Bengaluru Permanent Address: No.242, Tank Street Andampallam Tirunamugam Tiruranamalai, Tamilnadu State (Accused in JC) (By Kiran S S, Adv.) V/s Respondent : The State by Halasurgate Police Station, Bengaluru. (Rep. by Public Prosecutor, Bengaluru.) 2 Crl. Misc. No. 2829/2024

ORDER

The petition is filed by the petitioner under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. for granting of bail.

2. On the strength of complaint the Halasurgate

police have registered the case in Crime No. 30/2024 for the offence punishable under Sections 506 and 307 of I.P.C.

3. The case of the petitioner is that he is innocent and

has been falsely implicated by the respondent police. The petitioner has got valid and tenable defence in his favour. There is no overt act attributed against the present petitioner and there is no prima facie is made against the petitioner. There is no ill-will or motive to the petitioner to commit such offences. The alleged offences are not exclusively punishable either with death or imprisonment for life. The petitioner hail from respected families and have no bad antecedents or previous convict. The petitioner is in judicial custody. The petitioner is ready and willing to abide by the terms and conditions that may be imposed by the court & he is ready to offer surety to the satisfaction of the court for their release on bail. Hence he prays to allow the above application.

4. On the other hand the learned Public Prosecutor has

filed her objections & opposed the above application that the 3 Crl. Misc. No. 2829/2024 grounds urged for granting bail are not satisfactory & the prosecution papers placed on record prima-facie discloses the involvement of the petitioner in commission of the alleged heinous offences and now at this stage if the petitioner is granted bail then he may abscond & tamper the prosecution witnesses which in turn may hamper the trial & accordingly prayed for rejection of bail petition.

5. Heard the arguments. Perused the records.

6. The points that would arise for my consideration are

as hereunder; 1) Whether the petitioner has made out a prima-facie case for grant of bail as prayed in the bail petition? 2) To what Order?

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

Point No.1 – In 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 has not committed ant offences as alleged by the respondent police. The petitioner is permanent residents as mentioned in the cause title and alleged offences are not exclusively punishable with death or imprisonment for 4 Crl. Misc. No. 2829/2024 life. The petitioner is ready to abide by the conditions that may be imposed by the Court on them. Therefore, petitioner prays to allow the bail petition.

9. The learned Public Prosecutor argued that the

petitioner have conspired to commit the offence and make robbery and public dacoity. If the petitioner is released on bail, then there is chances of hampering and tampering of prosecution witnesses, there is a chances of threatening 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 to reject the bail application.

10. On perusal of the records, it reveals that one Raja

lodged the complaint. Based on the complaint, the police have registered the case in Cr.No.30/2024 for the offence punishable under Sections 506 and 307 of IPC. As per the prosecution case, on 15.02.2024 the defacto complainant had consumed alcohol in NR wine whop and had been sitting in the same road infront of Gujari shop near Siddanna galli under the jurisdiction of the respondent police, the petitioner is the known person to the defacto complainant and had come to the complainant and requested money for consume alcohol and the defacto complainant had refused to give 5 Crl. Misc. No. 2829/2024 money to the petitioner, the petitioner immediately took the cutter blade from his pocket and cut the defacto complainant lower stomach and the left shoulder and warned that he will kill the complainant by shouting and left the spot and thereafter immediately the public shifted the complainant to the Victoria hospital and admitted the complainant. Then the respondent police registered the case against the petitioner. Hence the complainant lodged the complaint.

11. It is utmost contention of learned counsel for the

petitioner that, the victim already got discharged from the hospital. On the other hand the prosecution have not disputed the fact that discharge of the victim from the hospital. It is vehement contention of learned public prosecutor that, mere on discharge of the victim, the petitioner are not entitled for the bail. After ascertain both the claim of the parties that it is not much disputed fact that, the injured of this crime got discharged from the hospital. In the instant case, since the petitioner is in judicial custody, the petitioner has been already interrogated, 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. 6 Crl. Misc. No. 2829/2024

12. 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 abscond of petitioner if released on bail is too remote.

13. 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.

14. However, the apprehension and interest of the

prosecution that if the petitioner is enlarged on bail, he may tamper with the prosecution witnesses or flee away from justice could be safeguarded and taken care by imposing some suitable conditions, which in turn, secure the presence of the petitioner for trial and serve dual purpose in the interest of justice. 7 Crl. Misc. No. 2829/2024

15. 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 have made out a case to allow the petition to grant regular bail and accordingly, I answer point No.1 in the affirmative.

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

No.1, I proceed to pass the following:- O R D E R The bail petition filed by the petitioner U/s 439 of Cr.P.C., is hereby allowed subject to following conditions;

1. That the petitioner is ordered to be

released on bail in Cr. No.30/2024 on executing a personal bond for Rs.1,00,000/- with two sureties to the satisfaction of learned 1st ACMM, Bengaluru for like sum amount.

2. That the petitioner shall not hold any

threat to the complainant and shall not tamper with any of the prosecution witnesses directly or indirectly.

3. That the petitioner shall furnish their

residential address proof and that of their surety. 8 Crl. Misc. No. 2829/2024

4. That the petitioner shall not indulge

in similar type of offences in future.

5. That the petitioner shall appear

before I.O. to mark their attendance on every 2nd Saturday of the month till filing of charge sheet.

6. That if the petitioner fails to obey any

of the above said conditions, then this bail order automatically stands canceled. (Dictated to the Stenographer, directly on computer, typed by her, corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 1st day of April, 2024) (A. EARANNA) LXII ACC & SJ, B’luru