KABC010085532024 IN THE COURT OF XLV ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY (CCH-46) DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF APRIL, 2024 PRESENT: Sri. Manjunatha, B.A., LL.B., XLV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru. CRL.MISC. No.3026/2024 Petitioners 1.Tejas Kumar.T.N. @ Teju S/o Late Narasimhamurthy a/a 21 Yrs., r/o 3rd Cross, Sannaki Bayalu, Summanahalli, Magadi Main Road, Bangalore. 2.Mouneshwara @ Moni S/o Lae B. C. Mohan, a/a 21 Yrs., r/a No.349, 1st Main, Opp. Sollapuradamma Temple, Kottagepalya, Bangalore.

3. Appa Saheb @ Ajay @ Ajith Makali S/o Beerapppa, a.a 22 yrs., r/o Near SRS Chicken Center, Parimalanagar, Tent Road, Kanteerava Studio, Bangalore. (By Sri/Smt; R. S. Harishkumar, Adv.,)

AND 2 Crl.Misc.No.3026/2024 Respondent State by Kamakshipalya P. S., Bengaluru. (By the learned Public Prosecutor) ORDER ON BAIL PETITION FILED U/S.439 OF Cr.P.C., The learned counsel for the petitioners has filed bail petition U/s.439 of Cr.P.C. to release them on bail consequent upon their remand to judicial custody in the case registered against them and others by the respondent Police on the complaint of Sri M. N. Nagarjun, a/a 26 Yrs., for the an offences punishable U/s.341, 307, 354, 504 and 509 r/w Sec.149 of IPC. in their Crime No.137/2024 in the interest of justice.

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

the information of Sri M. N. Nagarjun, a/a 26 Yrs., the Respondent Police have registered case in Crime No.137/2024 against the Petitioners and others for an offences punishable U/s.341, 307, 354, 504 and 509 r/w Sec.149 of IPC. The petitioners were arrested on 24.03.2024 and produced them before the Jurisdictional Court, and they were remanded to judicial custody and till date they are in judicial custody.

3. The petitioners are claiming the bail on the grounds that

they are innocent of the alleged offences and the false case has been lodged against them to implicate them in the crime, which they have not committed. It is also submitted that the petitioners being law abiding citizen, would abide with the conditions put forth by the Court in case of their release. Further contended that if they are detained their family would suffer and hence, they have prayed for allowing the petition. 3 Crl.Misc.No.3026/2024 4.The learned Public Prosecutor has filed objection in detail along with the report of I.O., 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 dismissal of the petition.

5. Heard the arguments on both sides and perused the

materials on record.

6. The following points that arises for consideration of this

court: 1.Whether the petitioners have out any ground forhisreleaseonbailinCr.No.137/2024of Kamakshipalya P.S.atthisstage assought for? 2.Whatorder?

7. This court has answered the above points are as

under: PointNo.1 : IntheNegative PointNo.2 : Asperfinalorder forthefollowing: R E A S O N S

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

evident to note that the Respondent Police have registered a Crime No.137/2024 against the Petitioners and others for the offences punishable U/s.341, 307, 354, 504 and 509 r/w Sec.149 of IPC on the Complaint of complainant-Sir M. N. Nagarju, a/a 26 Yrs., It is the case of the complainant that the accused No.1 used to abuse the wife of complainant, and when complainant 4 Crl.Misc.No.3026/2024 objected for the same, the accused No.1 threatened the complainant with life. And on 22.03.2024 in between 7.00 and 7.15 p.m. wife of the complainant alight at Summanahalli Junction after completion of her shooting, while they having a tea near tea shop the accused persons came, picked up quarrel with them. The accused No.1 by assaulting with long, caused injuries on her chest, accused No.1 stabbed with knife on her left side of flank and caused injuries, and the remaining persons by assaulting kicked him with legs by outraging the modesty of his wife, when people gathered, they ran away from the spot. His wife admitted him to the hospital. The accused persons with intention and knowledge attempted to kill the complainant with deadly weapons and caused grievous injuries. Accordingly, complainant has lodged the complaint against accused persons before respondent police. 9.The contention of petitioners is that they are innocent of the offences alleged and there is absolutely no case made out against them for the alleged offences. Further contended that they are ready to offer surety to the satisfaction of this Court for their regular appearance before this Court and before the I.O., Per contra the learned Public Prosecutor has contended that the investigation is not yet completed, at this stage if the bail is granted in favour of the petitioners, then they might abscond and also tamper the prosecution witnesses and hamper the investigation. Further at this stage when investigation is under progress, this Court cannot come to the conclusion that the petitioners are innocent of the offences alleged against them. In view of the same the contention of petitioners that they are 5 Crl.Misc.No.3026/2024 innocent of the offences alleged against them does not stand for consideration.

10. The offences alleged against the petitioner is

punishable U/s.341, 307, 354, 504 and 509 r/w sec.149 of IPC. The offence U/s.307 of IPC is though not punishable with death, but it is punishable with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years and shall also be liable to fine and it is triable by this Court. 11.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. Further as per the materials on record it discloses that the petitioners were remanded to judicial custody on 24.03.2024 and till date their custody is continued. On perusal of the entire records placed before the Court, prima facie it discloses that the petitioners with intention and knowledge attempted to kill the complainant complainant by outraging the modesty of his wife in public. The gravity and seriousness of the offence and the direct involvement of the petitioners in attempting to kill the complainant, by causing grievous injuries has to be considered on priority while considering the bail to the petitioners. As per the objections raised by the prosecution if at all the petitioners are released on bail at this juncture, it would definitely hamper the investigation of the case and likelihood to cause injury to the complainant. Considering all these aspects, it is found that at the stage of investigation if the petitioners are released on bail, it may hamper the process of investigation. 6 Crl.Misc.No.3026/2024

12. Hon'ble Supreme Court in 2021 CRI.L.J.2678: AIR

online 2021 SC 205 in Criminal Appeal No.343 of 2021(arising out of SLP(Crl.,) No.1530 of 2021) and Interlocutory Application Nos.24659 and 41412 of 2021 dated 19.03.2021 (State of KeralaV.Mahesh) has held that “When the incident is heinous, the Court has to consider the material on record, which prima facie made out reasonable grounds to believe that accused has committed the alleged offence. The Court should not proceed to grant bail by considering the period of custody of the accused till the investigation completed”. In the instant case also the investigation is yet to be completed and final report is not filed. Considering all these aspects, it is found that at the stage of investigation if the petitioners is released on bail, it may cause delay in investigation and there is possibility of petitioners influencing the witnesses when the witnesses and accused are residents of the same place. Further in KalyanChandraSarkar V., Rajesh Ranjan (2004) 7 SCC 528: 2004 SCC (Cri) 1977 heldthat. while granting bail the Court should exercise its discretion in a judicial manner and not a matter of course. ItisalsonecessaryfortheCourtgrantingbail toconsider (a) The nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supportingevidence. (b) Reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witnessorapprehensionofthreattothecomplainant, 7 Crl.Misc.No.3026/2024 (c) Prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge, as a dictum of law laid down in Ram Govind Upadhyay V. Sudarshan Singh (2002) 3 SCC 598:2002SCC(Cri)688that “Grant of bail though being a discretionary order – but, however, calls for exercise of such a discretion in a judicious manner and not as a matter of course. Order for bail bereft of any cogent cannot be sustained. 13.In the instant case while applying the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court with the fact of the case, it is found that investigation is still in progress. In the case on hand the alleged intention and knowledge of the petitioners in attempting to kill the complainant by causing grievous injuries, and outraging modesty of his wife in public has to be taken in consideration while considering the bail petition. The facts before the Court prima facie discloses the involvement of petitioners in committing the alleged offences against women and society. Further the gravity of the offence and allegation made against the petitioners in committing the alleged offences is taken into consideration and for the said reasons the petitioners have not made out any ground for their release on bail. Hence, for the above reasons and discussions this bail petition does not survive for consideration on merit. Accordingly, I answer point No.1 in the Negative.

15. Point No.2: In view of answer of this court on point

No.1, this court pass the following:- 8 Crl.Misc.No.3026/2024 O R D E R The bail petition filed by the petitioners U/s.439 of Cr.P.C. is hereby dismissed. (Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer directly on Computer, corrected by me and then pronounced in open Court on this the 27th day of April, 2024) (Manjunatha) XLV Addl. CC & SJ, Bengaluru. Digitally signed by MANJUNATH MANJUNATHNAIK RAMA RAMA NAIK Date: 2024.04.29 16:00:14 +0530 9 Crl.Misc.No.3026/2024 Order pronounced in the open court vide its separate order O R D E R The bail petition filed by the petitioners U/s.439 of Cr.P.C. is hereby dismissed. (Manjunatha) XLV ACC & SJ, Bengaluru. 10 Crl.Misc.No.3026/2024