KABC010084752024 IN THE COURT OF XLV ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY (CCH-46) DATED THIS THE 1ST TH DAY OF APRIL, 2024 PRESENT: Sri. Manjunatha, B.A., LL.B., XLV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru. CRL. MISC. No.2993/2024 Petitioners 1.Yellappa S/o Venkataswamy, a/a 48 Yrs., R/a No.1016, Maruthi Layout, Pillaganahalli, Bangalore-560 083. 2.Y. Harish, S/o Yellappa, a/a 28 Yrs., R/o Near Eswara Temple, Ittanguru, Sarjapura, Bangalore-562 125. (By Sri/Smt; M.M. Ashok, Adv.,) AND Respondent State by Konanakunte P. S., Bengaluru. (By the learned Public Prosecutor) ORDER ON BAIL PETITIONS FILED U/S.438 OF Cr.P.C., The learned counsel for Petitioners has filed bail petition U/s.438 of Cr.P.C., to grant anticipatory bail in favour of the Petitioners and also direct the Respondent Police to release 2 Crl.Misc.No.2993/2024 them on bail in the event of their arrest in their Crime No.495/2023 in the interest of justice.

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

complaint of complainant-Smt.Bholakshmamma, a/a 45 Yrs., the Respondent Police have registered case against the Petitioners in Crime No.495/2023 for the offences punishable U/s.324, 354, 307, 384 and 506 r/w Sec.149 of IPC. The Petitioners being accused persons apprehending their arrest by the Respondent Police and constrained to file this petition to grant bail and thereby they have prayed for allowing the petition. 3.The petitioners claims innocence and contend that they have been falsely implicated in the said case and further contended that they have not committed any offences as alleged in the complaint. They are ready to abide by any conditions that would be imposed by this court and prays to allow the petition. 4.The learned Public Prosecutor has filed objection in detail 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. Perused the relevant materials on record. 6.The following points are arises for consideration of this Court: 1.WhetherthePetitionershavemadeoutsufficient grounds for granting Anticipatory bail in their 3 Crl.Misc.No.2993/2024 favour in Cr. No.495/2023 of Konanakunte P. S.,atthisstageassoughtfor? 2.Whatorder? 7.This court has answered the above points are as under: PointNo.1 : IntheAffirmative 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 case against the Petitioners and others in Crime No.495/2023 for the offences punishable U/s.324, 354, 307, 384 and 506 r/w Sec.149 of IPC, on the Complaint of complainant- Smt.Bholakshmamma, a/a 45 Yrs., After completion of investigation the respondent police have submitted charge sheet against the petitioners and others for the offences punishable U/s.307, 324, 354, 506 r/w Sec. 149 of IPC. The petitioners are accused No.2 and 3 as per the FIR and charge sheet. 9.It is the case of the prosecution that on 26.11.2023 at 12.30 p.m. while accused persons measuring the vacant site situated at Telephone poll No.194/18/LED/18 of Pillaganahalli. When CW.1 to CW.4 enquire the same, the accused No.1 with intention and knowledge stabbed with knife on the left side of the chest of CW.2 stabbed her husband with knife, accused No.2 to 4 by holding club attempted to assault CW.2, at that time CW.1 went to rescue of Cw.2, caught hold her hairs, made her to fall on the ground, dragged her, accused No.1 torn her 4 Crl.Misc.No.2993/2024 cloths, accused No.2 assaulted her with club, the accused No.5 to 9 have assaulted and threatened to kill her by pouring petrol by outraging her modesty. Accordingly, informant has lodged the complaint against accused persons before respondent police.

10. 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 the Court. 11.The learned Public Prosecutor has contended that the charge sheet is already filed against the petitioners and others indicating that the petitioners have committed the alleged offences. Further it is contended that at this stage if the bail is granted in favour of the petitioners, then they may abscond and also tamper the prosecution witnesses. Further it is contended that the bail petition of petitioners filed earlier is already dismissed and the present petition filed after charge-sheet is filed against them which does not amount to change of circumstances. Hence, at this stage the contention of petitioners that they are innocent of the offences alleged against them does not stand for consideration. It is not desirable on the part of this Court at this stage to come to the conclusion that the petitioners are innocent of the offences alleged against them.

12. The offences alleged against the petitioners is

punishable U/s.307, 324, 354, 506 r/w Sec. 149 of IPC. The offence U/s.307 of IPC is though not punishable with death, but 5 Crl.Misc.No.2993/2024 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. 13.It is very important to consider the fact that the charge sheet is already filed against the petitioners and others, if stringent conditions are imposed the purpose of prosecution objection that the petitioners might tamper the prosecution witnesses and flee from the trial can be met with. More over the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka has granted regular bail to accused No.1, 6 and 9 vide order passed in in Crl., Petition No.1097/2024, 13843/2023 and 223/2024. 14.The learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon Criminal Appeal No.1603/2019 (Arising out of SLP(Crl.) No.9269 of 2019) P. Chidambaram Vs., CBI with Criminal appeal No.1605/2019 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.9445 of 2019) of Hon’ble Supreme CourtofIndia,CriminalAppellateJurisdiction. 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. The order sheet, FIR, complaint and charge sheet produced by the petitioner discloses that the dispute in between the parties is appears to be civil in nature. It is pertinent to note that the petitioners have produced sufficient material to show that interrogation of the petitioners is not at all required for the alleged offences as shown in the FIR and charge sheet. Further, it is equally important to note that the respondent police have completed the 6 Crl.Misc.No.2993/2024 investigation and filed charge sheet against the petitioners for the alleged offences. On perusal of the documents, would shows that after filing of charge sheet, concerned Magistrate has issued process against the petitioners. The chance of petitioners tampering the prosecution witnesses, as contended by the prosecution in the objection would be met with by imposing stringent conditions. For the said reasons and discussions, denying anticipatory bail to the petitioners does not arise. 15.Whether the petitioners have committed the offences as contended by the complainant is a matter, which has to be decided only at the time of full-fledged trial. At this juncture, when the petitioners are ready to abide by the terms and conditions imposed by the court and when they are ready to offer due and adequate surety for their release on bail, then this court is of the opinion that no purpose will be served by allowing the respondent police to apprehend the petitioners and to keep them in custody. The objections raised by the second respondent can be met by imposing stringent conditions. The petitioners are the permanent residents as shown in the cause title and this fact has not been disputed by the prosecution, as such the presence of petitioners can be secured easily, hence, the question of absconding of the petitioners does not arise at all. The objections raised by the learned Public Prosecutor can be met by imposing stringent conditions. There is absolutely no ground made out by the prosecution to reject this bail petition. Accordingly, under these circumstances, the petitioners have made out sufficient ground for granting anticipatory bail in their 7 Crl.Misc.No.2993/2024 favour at this stage as prayed for as there exist reason to believe that they may be arrested in non-bailable offences. Accordingly, I answer Point No.1 in the affirmative.

16. Point No.2: In view of answer of this Court on point

No.1, this court pass the following:- O R D E R The bail petition filed by the petitioners U/s.438 of Cr.P.C. is hereby allowed. The petitioners are hereby ordered to be released on bail on their executing personal bond for Rs.1,00,000/- each with two sureties for the like sum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court/I.O., in the event of their arrest in crime No.495/2023 in CC No.3615/2024 of Konanakunte P. S., subject to the following conditions that:- 1.They 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/ her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to the concerned I.O., 2.They shall not tamper with prosecution witnesses in any manner. They shall not intimidate the complainant. 3.They shall not commit similar offences or any offence in future. 4.They shall appear before the concerned Magistrate court as and when directed. 8 Crl.Misc.No.2993/2024 5.They shall not leave the jurisdiction of Bangalore City without prior permission. 6.They shall not change their place of residence outside the jurisdiction of Bangalore City without prior intimation. 7.They shall appear before the concerned Court as and when directed. 8.They shall appear before the concerned Court, within 15 days from the date of this order, failing which the order stands canceled. 9.They shall furnish the notarized copy of their residential ID Address proof. 10.In the event of violation of any of the above conditions, the above bail shall stand automatically canceled. (Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer directly on Computer, corrected by me and then pronounced in open Court on this the 1st h day of April, 2024) (Manjunatha) XLV Addl. CC & SJ, Bengaluru. Digitally signed by MANJUNATH MANJUNATH RAMA NAIK RAMA NAIK Date: 2024.04.10 15:30:58 +0530 9 Crl.Misc.No.2993/2024 Order pronounced in the open court vide its separate order O R D E R The bail petition filed by the petitioners U/s.438 of Cr.P.C. is hereby allowed. (Manjunatha) XLV Addl. CC & SJ, Bengaluru. 10 Crl.Misc.No.2993/2024