1
Crl.Misc. No.3165/2024
KABC010089282024
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 18th day of April 2024.
Crl.Misc.No.3165/2024
PETITIONER/
ACCUSED NO.1:-
RESPONDENT:-
Sri. Chethan K.
S/o. Krishnamurthy,
Aged about 26 years,
R/at No. 22, 8th Main,
Agrahara Dasarahalli,
Bengaluru-560 079.
(Rep by Sri. Manohara – Advocate)
-VSThe State of Karnataka
By: Magadi Road Police Station,
Bengaluru.
(By Public Prosecutor)
ORDER
Accused No.1- Chethan K. in Magadi Road Police Station Crime
No. 35/2020 (CC No.6741/2020) has filed this application for grant of
anticipatory bail under Sec. 438 of Cr.P.C. Petitioner is alleged to
have committed offence punishable under Section 399, 402 of IPC.
2.

Brief facts of the case as forthcoming from first information
is as under :
2
Crl.Misc. No.3165/2024
On 17.03.2020 at about 8-40 P.M, CW1 received information
that under dark at Ambedkar Stadium, Agrahara Dasarahalli, the
accused persons along-with J1 were holding deadly weapons,
preparing to commit dacoity of the passers by, at that time CW1
along with CW4 to 8 and in the presence of CW2 and 3 conducted
raid, and took into custody accused No.1 to 3 and J-1 along with
deadly weapons and during the raid accused No.4 and 5 escaped
from the spot.

3.

Petitioner has urged the following grounds :
Petitioner is innocent of the alleged offences. Petitioner was
granted bail in Crl.Misc.No.2731/2020 and regularly appearing
before Court, thereafter since his parents were not feeling well and
the petitioner taken them to Kerala for treatment and thereafter he
was unable to contact his advocate also. As such he could not be
present before this Court. Hence, HonТble Court issued NBW and
proclamation against the petitioner. The petitioner is earning member
of the family, having aged parents to look-after if he is arrested, then
not only the petitioner, but his entire family members would be put to
great hardship and sufferings. The petitioner was not at all present
in the alleged spot on the alleged date of incident, but he has been
falsely implicated as accused in the above case.

It is further
3
Crl.Misc. No.3165/2024
submitted that in the above case the other accused have already
granted bail, hence this petitioner is also entitle for his release on
bail. The petitioner was not at all aware about the alleged incident
that had happened on that particular date, he does not known other
accused persons in the said case, nor colluded with therm for
committing the said offences, he neither directly or indirectly involved
in the said case. Even though petitioner is no way connected to
alleged crime. The entire allegations made against petitioner are all
false, frivolous, concocted and fabricated one. At no point of time
petitioner was present at the alleged incident spot along with others
and involved in the alleged preparation for commission of decoity
and their future will be tarnished if petitioner is not released on bail.
The respondent police have already filed charge sheet and hence
custodial interrogation of petitioner does not arise at all. The offence
are not exclusively punishable with death or imprisonment for life, he
is permanent resident of Bengaluru, he is ready and willing to abide
by terms and conditions that may imposed on him. Hence, prays to
allow the application.

4.

Learned Public Prosecutor has filed objections to bail
application along with memo of instruction, in objection has
reiterated
the averments made in first information. It is stated that
4
Crl.Misc. No.3165/2024
there are no grounds for granting anticipatory bail to petitioner,
grounds urged in the petition are not at all true.

If petitioner is
granted anticipatory bail, he will abscond from the jurisdiction of this
Court, threaten the witness and destruct the evidence collected
against him. Hence prayed for rejection of bail.

5.

Heard the learned Advocate for petitioner and the learned
Public Prosecutor.

6.

The point that arise for consideration is :
(1) Whether Anticipatory bail application filed by
accused No.1 in Magadi Road Police Station
Crime No.35/2020 deserves to be allowed ?
7.

My finding to above point is in the Negative for the
following :REASONS
8.

Point No.1: Along with this bail application, certified copy of
FIR, first information, charge sheet, order sheet of learned
Magistrate, copy of Aadhar card of petitioner/A1 are produced,
charge sheet dated.30.03.2020 discloses that as on the date of
charge sheet accused No.1 and 2 were in Judicial Custody.

9. A1 and A2 were granted bail in Crl.Misc.No.2137/2020 and
5
Crl.Misc. No.3165/2024
Crl.Misc.2731/2020. Surety was furnished. Release intimation was
issued on 6.07.2020. Perusal of Order sheet of learned Magistrate
discloses that accused No.1/petitioner remained absent, other
accused persons also remained absent. Hence on 16.09.2022 NBW
issued against accused No.5. Proclamation was issued. It is yet to
be published.

Learned Magistrate has fixed the next date as
10.06.2024.

10.

It is necessary to note here that petitioner/Accused No.1
was enlarged on bail earlier.

Now due to issuance of NBW.

Anticipatory bail is sought for. In this context it is necessary to refer
to
the case of Mujahidulla and another Vs State of Karnataka
reported in 2022 (3) KCCR 2410. The Hon’ble High Court in Para 5
of the said Judgment has held as under :-
УHaving heard the respective learned counsel, it is
not in dispute that earlier the petitioners were granted
bail and thereafter they appeared before the Trail court
during the crime stage and after filing of the charge
sheet, cognizance was taken and summons was issued
against the petitioners, but they did not appear before
the Trial court.

The order sheet reveals that the
summons was not served against the petitioners and
when the summons was not served, NBW was issued
and having taken note of the said factual aspect of the
6
Crl.Misc. No.3165/2024
case, it is appropriate to direct the petitioners to
approach the Trial court by filing the necessary
application for recalling the warrant issued against the
petitioners. The petition filed before this court under
section 438 of Cr.P.C. is not maintainable once the
petitioners have been enlarged on bail.

With these
observations, the petition is disposed ofФ.
11. Ratio laid down in the above case in the cited case is
squarely applicable to the facts of this case. Hence, I answer above
point in the Negative and proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
Bail application filed under Section 438
Cr.P.C. by Petitioner/ accused
of
No.1 is hereby
rejected as not maintainable.
Liberty is reserved to petitioner/ accused No.1
to eke out his remedies in accordance with law.
(Dictated to the Stenographer-III, transcribed and typed by
him, after corrections, pronounced by me in Open Court on this
the 18th day of April, 2024)
(NARASHIMSA.M.V.)
LX Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru.