KABC010078042024 IN THE COURT OF THE LXII ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE BENGALURU CITY [CCH.63] Dated: This the 19 th day of April, 2024 Present: Sri. A. EARANNA, M.Com., L.L.M., LXII Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City. Crl.Misc.No.2794/2024 Petitioner: Umez Ahammed S/o Raffiq Ahammed Aged about 22 years R/at #22/2, 1st Main 4th Cross, Maruti Layout BTM 2nd Stage Bengaluru-560 029 (Accused No.2) (By Sudha G, Advocate) Vs. Respondent: State by Mico Layout police station Bengaluru (Rep. by Public Prosecutor). 2 Crl. Misc. No.2794/2024 O R D E R The petitioner has filed the petition under Section 438 of Cr.P.C to release the accused on bail.

2. On the strength of complaint the Mico Layout police

have registered the case in Crime No.460/2011 for the offence punishable under Sections 399 and 402 of I.P.C. Respondent police after completion of investigation have filed the charge sheet in CC No. 7360/2012.

3. In the bail petition it is contended that the

respondent police have falsely implicated the petitioner in the case. The petitioner is the resident of address mentioned in the cause title. The absence of the accused before the Court was not intentional but for bonafide reason and non compliance of the order within time was not intentional because of unexpected lock down and lack of communication between the counsel and the petitioner the petitioner unable to comply the order within time. The accused undertakes to appear before the Court on all the 3 Crl. Misc. No.2794/2024 dates of hearing without fail till the conclusion of the trial. Hence he is seeking anticipatory bail. Therefore, he prays to release the accused on bail.

4. The learned Public Prosecutor filed the objections

stating that on the basis of the complaint, respondent police registered the case for the offence punishable under Sections 399 and 402 of IPC. That after completion of investigation, the police have filed the charge sheet. But the accused No.2 has not appeared. Proclamation was issued against the accused No.2 and he has not appeared. He may abscond from the case, may destroy the prosecution witnesses. Along with other grounds she prays to reject the bail petition.

5. Heard both sides. Perused the record.

6. Following points arise for consideration of this

Court:

1. Whether the petitioner has made out grounds to enlarge him on anticipatory bail under Section 438 of Cr.P.C.?

2. What Order? 4 Crl. Misc. No.2794/2024

7. My findings on the above Points are as follows:

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

8. Point No.1: The counsel for the petitioner argued

that the absence of the accused before the Court was not intentional but for bonafide reason and non compliance of the order within time was not intentional because of unexpected lock down and lack of communication between the counsel and the petitioner the petitioner unable to comply the order within time. The accused is innocent, he has not committed any offence as alleged by the complainant police. The petitioner is ready to abide by the conditions imposed by the Court. Therefore he prays to allow the bail application.

9. The learned Public Prosecutor argued that case

was registered in the year 2011. The accused is continuously absent, not appeared before the Court. It shows that he has not obeyed the order of the Court. If the 5 Crl. Misc. No.2794/2024 accused is released on bail, he may abscond from the case. Therefore, the prosecution prays to reject the bail petition.

10. On going through the prosecution case, on

22.08.2011, accused Nos.1 to 5 being armed with deadly weapons by parking two Motorcycles were making preparation for committing dacoity behind Lakshmi Balaji Theatre, S.G.Palya Main Road, Bengaluru and thereby accused Nos.1 to 5 have committed the offences punishable under Sections 399 and 402 of IPC. Thereafter this case was made over to this Court after taking cognizance against the accused persons. Then the process was issued against the accused persons. But, the present accused No.2 appeared before the Court and he was got released on bail. Thereafter the accused No.1 has not appeared before the Court. Hence, issued summons number of times. Inspite of it, he is concealing the summons and warrants. Finally this Court has issued proclamation under Section 82 of Cr.P.C. Then the present accused has filed the above said bail application seeking release on bail stating that he was 6 Crl. Misc. No.2794/2024 enlarged on bail as per Crl. Misc. No.10135/2018 dated 05.12.2018 and regularly attending till end of the year 2019 but unfortunately it was Covid period and due to lack of communication he was unable to comply the bail orders and recently he came to know about the status of the case, hence the petitioner apprehending his arrest approached the Court. Apart from this, he has not at all made out any grounds to allow the bail application. When he was got released on bail, it is the duty of the accused to follow the directions of the Court and he has executed the bond stating that he would appear regularly and not hamper and tamper the prosecution witnesses. Inspite of that, after he got released on bail, he has not appeared for several times. The warrant was issued. Finally proclamation was issued. The attitude of the accused clearly shows that he was not obeying the Court orders. In the present case the accused has not made out grounds to release him on bail. Hence, the petition filed by the petitioner for anticipatory bail is 7 Crl. Misc. No.2794/2024 liable to be rejected. Accordingly, I answer the point No.1 in the Negative.

11. Point No.2: In view of my findings on Point

No.1, I proceed to pass the following: O R D E R The anticipatory bail petition filed by the petitioner under Section 438 of Cr.P.C is hereby rejected. (Dictated to the Stenographer, typed by her directly on computer, corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in Open Court on this the 19th day of April, 2024) (A. EARANNA) LXII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City.