KABC010086472024 IN THE COURT OF THE LXII ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY [CCH.63] Dat ed: This the 4 th day of April, 2024 Present: Sri. A. EARANNA, M.Com., LL.M., LXII Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City. CRL.MISC.No. 3065/2024 PETITIONER: Gopikumar @ Gopi S/o Bharati Mohan Aged about 28 years, R/at No.110, 1st Cross, A Lane Bank Colony, Vinayaka Talkies, Near Anjanappa Garden Bengaluru (Accused No.2) [By: Umesh T K, Advocate] V/s RESPONDENT: State by City Market Police Station, Bengaluru. (By Public Prosecutor) ORDERS 2 Crl.Mis. 3065/2024 The petition is filed by the petitioner under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. for granting of bail.

2. On the strength of complainant the City Market police

have registered the case in Crime No. 204/2022 for the offence punishable under Section 399, 402 of I.P.C., pending on the file of IX ACMM, Bengaluru.

3. It is contended by the petitioner that the petitioner is

absolutely innocent of the alleged offences, he has not committed any offences, police have falsely implicated in the case. The police have not seized any property from the petitioner. Petitioner is law abiding citizen. There is no previous antecedents. Police have falsely implicated the petitioner and concocted and fabricated false document against the petitioner. Petitioner is the resident of address mentioned in the cause title. The petitioner is ready and willing to abide by the conditions that may be imposed on him and execute the bond to the satisfaction of the Court and appear before the Court each and every day and co-operate the investigating agency. There is no need to required for 3 Crl.Mis. 3065/2024 custodial interrogation. Police have filed the charge sheet. Therefore, prays to allow the petition.

4. On the other hand, the learned public prosecutor

filed objection along with I.O report contending that the police have registered the case against the petitioner for the offences punishable U/s 399, 402 of I.P.C. and said offences are non- bailable in nature. If the petitioner is released on bail he may commit similar offences, he will come in the way of trial, tampering of witnesses. Therefore, prays to reject the bail.

5. Heard both sides. Perused the records.

6. In the light of submission of counsels, the points that

arise for consideration of this court are: 1.Whether the petitioner has made out grounds for grant of bail under section 439 of Cr.P.C.?

2. What order?

7. My answers to the above points are as here under:

Point No.1: In the Affirmative 4 Crl.Mis. 3065/2024 Point No.2: As per final order for the following;

REASONS

8. POINT No.1: The learned Counsel for the

petitioner argued that the petitioner have not committed any offences, is falsely implicated in the case. The petitioner is ready to abide by the conditions imposed by this Court. The alleged offences are not punishable with death or imprisonment for life. The petitioner is in Judicial custody from the date of his arrest. Hence the petitioner prays to allow the bail application. Learned Public Prosecutor argued that the case is under investigation. If the petitioner is released on bail, then there is chances of hampering and tampering of prosecution witnesses, there is a chances of threat the prosecution witnesses, there is chances of abscond from the case and he will commit similar kind of offences cannot be ruled out. Along with other grounds prosecution prays for rejection of the bail application. 5 Crl.Mis. 3065/2024

9. On perusal of the prosecution papers it reveals

that on 26.12.2022, ASI of City Market PS received credible information that few persons have conspired together to do dacoitee and by giving threat to the persons to take the amount and other articles. After getting the credible information complainant and other police persons went nearby behind the Metro station of Chickpet where 5 persons having deadly weapons like long knife, club and iron rod, that they are conspired to rob the amount and other articles. After receiving the credible information the complainant and police went to the said place after confirming the same, they have tried to caught hold the said persons, two persons flew away from the said place and 3 persons were caught hold. Then from the said persons seized one knife, one club & one iron rod. The the ASI has lodged the complaint. Based on the complaint, the City Market police have registered the case in Cr.No.204/2022 for the offences punishable under Sec.399, 402 of IPC. From the date of arrest the petitioner is in JC. 6 Crl.Mis. 3065/2024

10. It is vehement arguments of the learned Counsel

for the petitioner that the petitioner has falsely implicated in the case. He is in the judicial custody. The respondent police have already filed the charge sheet. Further custodial detention is not warranted in the circumstances of the case. This petitioner was granted with bail in Crl. Misc No. 25/2023 dated 6.10.2023 and was attending the Court regularly. As the accused remained absent due to ill-health. The Court has issued NBW against the petitioner and he was arrested and now he is in Judicial custody. Therefore the counsel for the petitioner prays to allow the petition. The Prosecution opposed the plea of the petitioner contended in the petition. The petitioner has violated the bail conditions imposed by this Court. If the petitioner is granted with bail he may flee away from the justice. There are primafacie material available against him.

11. On perusal of the records it is the contention of

the learned counsel for the petitioner that he has the petitioner has already been granted with bail. The offences 7 Crl.Mis. 3065/2024 alleged against the petitioner are not exclusively punishable with death or imprisonment for life. In the instant case, the petitioner has been already interrogated and after completion of investigation, the charge sheet has been filed and as such, the petitioner is not required for further investigation or interrogation. No purpose would be served by further detaining the petitioner in judicial custody. No substantial ground made out by the prosecution for further detaining the petitioner in judicial custody.

12. The court has to see in a case like the one on hand

what are the considerations to be decided while disposing an application filed U/S. 439 Cr.PC. 1) nature and seriousness of the offences, 2) character of the evidence 3) circumstances which are peculiar to the accused 4) reasonable probabilities of the presence of the accused not being secured at the trial 5) reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with 6) larger interests of the public or the state and similar other considerations, which arise when the court is asked to admit accused to bail in a non bailable offence. Further 8 Crl.Mis. 3065/2024 emphasis is laid on two important points namely likelihood of accused of fleeing from justice and tampering with prosecution evidence. (AIR 1962 SC 253 The State V/s Captain Jagjeet singh).

13. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Central Bureau of

investigation Vs. V.Vijay Sai Reddy 2013 (7) SCALE 15 was pleased to express that; “28. While granting bail, the court has to keep in mind the nature of accusation, the nature of evidence in support thereof, the severity of the punishment which conviction will entail, the character of the accused, circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the accused at the trial, reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with, the larger interests of the public/ state and other similar consideration. It has also to be kept in mind that for the purpose of granting bail, the legislature has used the words ‘reasonable grounds for believing” instead of “the evidence” which means the court dealing with the grant of bail can only satisfy it as to whether there is a genuine case 9 Crl.Mis. 3065/2024 against the accused and that the prosecution will be able to produce prima facie evidence in support of the charge. It is not expected, at this stage, to have the evidence establishing the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

14. The petitioner claims to be permanent resident of

his address shown in the cause title of the bail petition. It is urged that the petitioner is ready and wiling to furnish surety to the satisfaction of the Court to ensure his regular attendance in the case and he is ready to abide by any of the conditions imposed by the Court. Hence the chance of abscondance of petitioner if released on bail is too remote.

15. Having heard rival submissions on both the sides,

this Court finds no valid, good and compelling grounds to reject the bail at this stage to the petitioner. Considering the factual aspects of this case, without expressing any opinion with regard to merits and demerits of this case, this Court holds that it is just and proper to grant the bail as prayed to the petitioner. Taking into consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and the materials available on 10 Crl.Mis. 3065/2024 record, I am of the opinion that the petitioner has made out a case to allow the petition to grant regular bail and accordingly, I answer point No.1 in the affirmative.

16. Point No.2 :- In view of my finding on point No.1,

I proceed to pass the following:- O R D E R The bail petition filed by the petitioner U/s 439 of Cr.P.C., is hereby allowed subject to following conditions;

1. That the petitioner is ordered to be

released on bail in Cr. No.204/2022 on executing a personal bond for Rs.1,00,000/- with one surety to the satisfaction of this Court for like sum amount.

2. That the petitioner shall not hold any

threat to the complainant and shall not tamper with any of the prosecution witnesses directly or indirectly.

3. That the petitioner shall furnish his

residential address proof and that of their surety. 11 Crl.Mis. 3065/2024

4. That the petitioner shall not indulge in

similar type of offences in future.

5. That the petitioner shall appear before

the trial court regularly without fail on receipt of the summons.

6. That if the petitioner fails to obey any of

the above said conditions, then this bail order automatically stands canceled. (Dictated to the Stenographer directly on computer, computerized printout taken thereof is corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in Open Court on this the 4th day of April, 2024). (A. EARANNA) LXII Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City.