1
Crl.Misc. No.8369/2023
KABC010229862023
IN THE COURT OF THE LX ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS
JUDGE, BENGALURU (CCH-61)
:PRESENT:
Sri Narashimsa M.V., B.Com., LL.B.,
LX Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City.
Dated this the 12th day of September, 2023.
Crl.Misc.No.8369/2023
PETITIONER:-
Ashuthosh Kumar Singh (A-1)
S/o Hanuman Singh
Aged about 19 years,
R/at No.33/A,
Manya Nilaya, Near Parkiram Schook
Hosahatti Layout,
Kotigehalli, Sahakar Nagar,
Bangalore
(Rep by Sri CVS – Adv)
-VS-
RESPONDENT:-
The State of Karnataka
By: Kodigehalli Police Station,
Bengaluru.
(By Public Prosecutor)
ORDER
Accused No.1 in Kodigehalli Police station Crime No.220/2023
has filed this bail application under Sec.439 of Cr.P.C. for the
offence punishable under Section 323, 324 r/w 34 of IPC.

2
Crl.Misc. No.8369/2023
2.

Brief facts of the case as forthcoming from the bail
petition are as under:On 12.8.2023, at about 5 pm, deceased and his wife going in
a car, when they reached near Ambedkar Bhavan, Canara Bank
Layout Government Hospital, at that time 4 to 5 unknown persons
have picked up quarrel without any sufficient cause or reason and
assaulted to Chandrashekar in deadly weapon on his head, face
and sustained blood injury and ran away, public have shifted him to
Medstar Hospital through Ambulance, and further treatment he has
shifted to NIMHANS, thereafter due to failure of treatment injured
died.
On 13.08.2023 respondent police have registered a case
against accused persons for offence punishable u/S 323, 324 r/w 34
of IPC, on the basis of complaint lodged by one Kemparaju, resident
of Muneshwaranagar, present petitioners arrayed as A-5 and 6,
during the course of investigation, police have added Section 307,
323, 324, 504 r/w 34 of IPC, due to failure of treatment, injured
died, respondent police inserted Section 143, 302, 307, 323, 504 r/
w 149 of IPC.
3. The grounds urged in this petition are as under:-
3
Crl.Misc. No.8369/2023
Petitioner is innocent, present FIR has been registered on false
and bogus facts, statement of deceased itself reveals that Shiva
who is A-2 hit deceased with intention of killing and it is very evident
from statement that it is not done by A-1, without application of
mind respondent police have falsely implicated petitioner name,
death happened due to injury sustained by falling on the road and
not due to scuffle between deceased and accused, accused No.1,
and deceased and his company are total strangers to A-1, thus
ingredients of offence alleged o have been committed by A-1 is not
at all attracted as there is no intention, motive and preparation done
by A1. It was deceased and his company who provoked the
accused, which is clear from the records produced by prosecution
itself that the deceased on his misconception that the A1 had
kidnapped a kid, started picking up fights with A-1. Respondent
police has added Section 302 of IPC only with the intention of
sensationalizing the case to gain undue publicity.

Petitioner,
belongs to good family and there is no criminal case pending
against him, he is a permanent resident of Bangalore he is ready
and willing to offer surety for the satisfaction of this court, if deems
fit to enlarge him on bail. Hence prayed for grant of bail.

4
Crl.Misc. No.8369/2023
4.

Leaned Public Prosecutor has filed objections to bail
application, along with instructions given by investigating officer. In
objections, averments made in the first information are reiterated.
Further, it is stated that accused is not deserve to be enlarged on
bail, if he
is enlarged on bail, there is every possibility of he
absconding from the jurisdiction of the Court, he will threaten the
witnesses and destruct the evidence. Hence, prayed for rejection of
bail application. It is stated that accused has committed heinous
offences and he should not be granted bail.
5. Heard the learned Advocate for petitioner and the learned
Public Prosecutor.
6.

The point that arises for my consideration is :
1.

7.

Whether bail application filed under
Sec.439 of Cr.P.C. by accused No.1
deserves to be allowed?

My finding to the above point is in the Negative, for the
following:REASONS
8. Point No.1:- Along with this bail application, entire order
sheet of crime No. 220/2023, first information, FIR remand
application are filed.

Perusal
of the order sheet of learned
Magistrate dated 18.8.2023 discloses that petitioner was arrested
5
Crl.Misc. No.8369/2023
and produced before the learned Magistrate and since then, he is in
custody.

Order sheet further reveals that initially, case was
registered for the offence punishable u/S 505, 34, 323, 324 of IPC,
later on permission was sought for to include Section 307 of IPC, it
was granted, one of the injured died, thus, permission to conduct
investigation u/S 302 of IPC sought for permission was granted.
9. Order sheet further reveals that A-1 to A6 were handed over
to police custody for the purpose of investigation till 21.8.2023.
Contention of learned counsel for petitioner is that since the
investigation has been completed petitioners have been falsely
implicated in the case, custodial interrogation is not at all necessary ,
it was contended by learned counsel petitioner is a student, if he is
detained in custody, his career will be at stake. It is necessary to
note that,
the assault is said to have
taken
place on
Chandrashekar, in a broad day light, A1/petitioner is resident of
Uttar Pradesh and other accused are resident of Bengaluru, offence
alleged against petitioner is punishable u/S 302 of IPC.

In bail
application A-1 is shown as resident of Bangalore, but in remand
application his address is shown as Uttar Pradesh. If A-1, is granted
bail, he will flee away from jurisdiction and trial will not begin at all.

6
Crl.Misc. No.8369/2023
One Goutham, was present at the spot when assault was caused
by A-1 to 6, even said Goutham is injured, mere completion of period
of police custody does not mean that the investigation has been
completed, Goutham is an eyewitness, if A-1 is enlarged on bail,
there is every possibility of life threat to Sri Goutham/ injured . He is
an eyewitness to the incident. Considering the nature and gravity of
injury, more particularly place, time
committed. However, taking into
when the offence has been
consideration, the gravity of
offence, this Court is of the clear opinion that A-1 is not entitled to be
enlarged on bail, hence, I answer above point in the negative and
proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
Bail application filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C.
by Petitioner/Accused Nos.1 in Kodigehalli P. S.
crime No. 220/2023 is hereby rejected.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and typed by him, after corrections,
pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the 12th day of September, 2023).

(NARASHIMSA.M.V.)
LX Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru.