KABC010087002024 IN THE COURT OF THE LII ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE (CCH-53) Dated this the 15th day of April, 2024 PRESENT Sri.B.G.Pramoda, B.A.L., LL.B., LII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru. Crl.Misc.No.3080/2024 Petitioner Sri.Mahendra B.K. @ Mottekanna S/o Keshavamurthy, Aged about 28 years, R/at No.58, 4th Main Road, 2nd Cross, Press Lay Out,Ullala Main Road, Jnanabharathi, Bengaluru. (Accused No.2) (By Sri.Manu B.S., Advocate) -V/S- Respondent : State of Karnataka by Chandra Layout police station, Bangalore. (Represented by learned Public Prosecutor) Crl.Misc.3080/2024

ORDER

This petition is filed by the petitioner u/Sec.439 of Cr.P.C., praying to enlarge him on bail in Crime No.172/2024 of Chandra Layout police station for the offences punishable u/Sec.307, 323 r/w Sec.34 of IPC, pending on the file of learned 46th ACMM Court, Bengaluru.

2. It is stated in the petition that the respondent

police have registered a case in Cr.No.172/2024 against the petitioner and others alleging the offences punishable u/Sec.307, 323 r/w Sec.34 of IPC. The respondent police during the course of investigation of the case have arrested the petitioner on 21.03.2024 and produced him before the learned Magistrate. The petitioner was remanded to judicial custody by Learned Magistrate. It is further stated in the petition that the petitioner is innocent and he has not committed the alleged offences. The respondent police have falsely implicated the petitioner in the aforesaid crime number. The petitioner is the permanent resident of address mentioned in the cause title. He hails from the respectable family and has not bad antecedents and he is sole earning member of his family, who is peace loving and law abiding citizen got deep rooted in the society. The petitioner is ready to abide by any terms and conditions imposed by this court for his enlargement on bail and he is ready to furnish suitable surety Crl.Misc.3080/2024 for his appearance before the court. Hence, the petitioner has prayed to allow their petition.

3. The learned Public Prosecutor has filed

objections to the bail application filed by the petitioner along with I.O. report by opposing the grant of bail to the petitioner by contending that the offences alleged to have been committed by the petitioner are grave in nature and against to the society. It is further stated in the objection that the petitioner and other accused have given voluntary statement before the I.O. by admitting their guilt and they have attempted to murder the informant. It is also stated in the objection statement that the petitioner is habitual offender and he is involved in many cases. It is further stated in the objection that the case is still at the investigation stage. If the petitioner is enlarged on bail, he may commit the offences of similar nature in future. The petitioner will abscond and he may not appear before Investigating Officer and before the court. It is further stated in the objection that if the petitioner is enlarged on bail he may try to destroy the evidence and he may threaten the prosecution witnesses. Hence, the Learned Public Prosecutor has prayed to reject the petition filed by the petitioner. Crl.Misc.3080/2024

4. Heard the arguments of Learned Public Prosecutor

and Learned counsel for the petitioner. Perused the petition, objection and other materials on record.

5. Having done so, the following points will arise for my

consideration: (1) Whether the bail petition filed by the petitioner u/s.439 of Cr.P.C., is deserves to be allowed? (2) What order?

6. My findings on the above points are as under:

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

7. Point No.1:- The respondent police have registered

case in Crime No.172/2024 of Chandra Layout police station against the petitioner by alleging the commission of offences punishable u/Sec.307, 323 r/w Sec.34 of IPC on the basis of the information given by Imran Khan. The respondent police during the course of investigation of the case have arrested the petitioner on 21.03.2024 and produced him before the learned Magistrate. The learned magistrate has remanded the petitioner to judicial custody. The petitioner is shown as accused No.2 in the remand application. Now, the petitioner is Crl.Misc.3080/2024 in judicial custody and as such, he has filed the present petition praying to enlarge him on bail by contending that he is innocent and he has not committed any offences as alleged against him and he has been falsely implicated by the respondent police in the aforesaid crime number. The petitioner has produced certified copy of FIR, complaint, remand application and other documents.

8. It is alleged in the FIR that on 19.03.2024, at

about 7.00 p.m., when the informant was riding the motor cycle near Arundati Nagar Arch, he found group of ten persons standing near the Arch. As such, he asked the said group why they were standing near the Arch. As such, the accused No.1 abused the informant with filthy language and sprayed pepper spray on the eyes of the informant. The accused No.2 with intention to murder the informant, stabbed informant with knife on the right side of the back of the informant. The accused No.3 has also stabbed the informant with knife. When the informant fell on the ground, the accused No.4 and other persons have assaulted the informant with hands and kicked him with legs and thereby all the accused have attempted to murder the informant.

9. The offences alleged against the petitioner are not

exclusively punishable with death or imprisonment for life. In Crl.Misc.3080/2024 the I.O. report, it is stated that the accused No.2 and 3 were arrested and their voluntary statements were recorded. It is further stated in the IO report that the police custody of accused No.2 and 3 was taken. The blood stained cloth of the informant as produced by his wife was seized by conducting mahazar. It is further stated in the IO report that the accused No.2 and 3 have took the Investigating Officer and panchas to the place of offence and they have produced two knives alleged to have been used for commission of offence and the said knives were seized by conducting mahazar. The statements of parents of the accused No.2 and 3 and accused No.1 and 4 was also recorded. Substantial investigation of the case is already completed. Further the injured is also released from the hospital and his discharge summary is produced. There is no danger to the life of the informant. Custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required for further investigation of the case. Whether the petitioner and other accused in furtherance of common intention have committed the alleged offences on the informant or not has to be adjudicated only after full-fledged trial.

10. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in

Balachandh @ Baliya (AIR 1977 SC 2447) and in many cases has held that has laid down the legal doctrine that “bail is a rule and jail is an exception”. This legal doctrine is laid Crl.Misc.3080/2024 down for safe guarding a fundamental right under article 21 of Constitution of India, granting the right to life and liberty. The petitioner is in judicial custody since from the date of his arrest.

11. Further, the petitioner is ready to abide by any

terms and conditions imposed by the court for his enlargement on bail. He is also ready to furnish surety to the satisfaction of the court for his appearance before the Investigating Officer. He is also ready to co-operate with the investigation of the case. The petitioner is the permanent resident of the Bengaluru. The presence of the petitioner during the course of investigation of the case can be secured by imposing suitable conditions. The bail application of the petitioner is objected by the prosecution mainly on the ground that the petitioner is involved in many cases and he is habitual offender and if he is enlarged on bail, he may commit similar offencess in future. But only on the ground that the petitioner is involved in some other cases, the bail to the petitioner cannot be rejected. Those cases are yet to be investigated and guilt of the petitioner has to be proved in those cases by the prosecution by adducing evidence. Only if the petitioner is convicted for many offences, he can be considered as habitual offender. The apprehension of Learned Public Prosecutor regarding absconding of the petitioner and Crl.Misc.3080/2024 regarding petitioner threatening the prosecution witnesses and destroying the evidence can be make good by imposing suitable terms and conditions. Under these facts and circumstances, I am of the opinion that the bail petition filed by the petitioner can be allowed and petitioner can be enlarged on bail by imposing suitable stringent terms and conditions. Accordingly, I answer point No.1 in the Affirmative.

12. Point No.2:- In view of my findings on point No.1, I

proceed to pass the following: O R D E R The petition filed by the petitioner/Accused No.2 u/s.439 of Cr.P.C., is hereby allowed. The petitioner/Accused No.2 is enlarged on bail in Crime No.172/2024 of Chandra Layout police station for the offences punishable u/Sec.307, 323 r/w Sec.34 of IPC, pending on the file of learned 46th ACMM Court, Bangalore, on petitioner furnishing personal bond for Rs.1,00,000/- and one surety for like sum to the satisfaction of the Learned Magistrate with the following further conditions: CONDITIONS (1) The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer once in a week on Sunday for the period of 3 months or till the completion of investigation of the case whichever is earlier and he shall co-operate with the investigation of the case and he shall appear before I.O. as and when called for by I.O. for investigation of the case. Crl.Misc.3080/2024 (2) The petitioner shall appear before the court regularly on all hearing dates during the trial of the case. (3) The petitioner 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 from disclosing such facts to the court or any police officer or any hamper with the evidence. (4) The petitioner shall not commit offences of similar in nature or any other offences in future. (5) The petitioner shall furnish his correct address proof before the trial court. (6) The petitioner shall not leave India without previous permission of the court. (7) Violation of any of the aforesaid conditions would entitle for cancellation of bail of the petitioner. (Dictated to the Stenographer, directly on computer, corrected and then pronounced by me in the open court on this the 15th day of April, 2024). (B.G.Pramoda) LII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru. Crl.Misc.3080/2024 Crl.Misc.3080/2024