KABC010018462023
IN THE COURT OF THE LII ADDL. CITY CIVIL &
SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE (CCH-53)
Dated this the 2nd day of February, 2023
PRESENT
Sri.B.G.Pramoda, B.A.L., LL.B.,
LII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bangalore.
Crl.Misc.No.599/2023
petitioner:
Sri.Gowtham G.
S/o Gangadhar N.,
Aged about 22 years,
R/at No.107/C, Sneha Nilaya,
5th Cross, 3rd Block,
Vishwapriya Layout, Begur,
Bengaluru – 560068.
(By Sri.Mukund S.N., Advocate)
-V/S-
Respondent :
State of Karnataka
by Begur police station,
Bangalore City.
(Represented
Prosecutor)
by
learned
Public
ORDER
The petitioner has filed this petition u/s.438 of Cr.P.C.,
praying to grant anticipatory bail to him in the event of his
Crl.Misc.No.599/2023
2
arrest in Cr.No.326/2022 of Begur police station, for the
offences punishable U/Sec.323, 324, 325 r/w Sec.34 of IPC
pending on the file of 41st ACMM, Bangalore.
2.

It is stated in the petition that the respondent
police have registered Crime No.326/2022 against the
petitioner for the offences punishable U/Sec.323, 324, 325
r/w Sec.34 of IPC, on the basis of information given by
Sanjay S. It is further stated in the petition that the petitioner
is innocent and he has not committed any offence as alleged
against him by the respondent police and he has been falsely
implicated in the aforesaid crime number. The respondent
police have making hectic efforts to arrest the petitioner. The
petitioner has apprehension of his arrest by the respondent
police. The petitioner is permanent resident of address
mentioned in the cause title. The petitioner is law abiding
citizen.The petitioner is ready to abide by any terms and
conditions that may be imposed by the court for his
enlargement on bail. The petitioner is ready and willing to
offer surety to the satisfaction of the court.

Hence, the
petitioner has prayed to allow the petition.
3.

The
learned
Public
Prosecutor
has
filed
objections to the bail application filed by the petitioner by
opposing the grant of bail to the petitioner by contending that
the offences alleged to have been committed by the
petitioner are grave in nature and against to the society. It is
Crl.Misc.No.599/2023
3
further stated in the objection that the alleged offences are
bailable in nature. The name of the petitioner is not
mentioned either in the FIR or in the complaint. There is no
apprehension of arrest of the petitioner. Hence, the Learned
Public Prosecutor has prayed to reject the application.
4. Heard the arguments of Learned Public Prosecutor
and Learned counsel for the petitioner. Perused the petition,
objection and other materials on record.
5. Having done so, the following points will arise for
my consideration:
(1) Whether the petitioner has made out
grounds for granting anticipatory bail
u/s.438 of Cr.P.C.,?
(2) What order?
6.

My findings on the above points are as under:
(1) Point No.1
..

In the Negative
(2) Point No.2
..

As per final order
for the following:
REASONS
7. Point No.1:- The petitioner has filed the present
petition praying for grant of anticipatory bail in Cr.326/2022 of
Begur police station which is registered by the respondent
police against one Yasin and others alleging the offences
4
Crl.Misc.No.599/2023
punishable u/Sec.323, 324, 325 r/w Sec.34 of IPC, on the
basis of information given by one Sanjay S. The petitioner
has produced the certified copy of the complaint, FIR and
order sheet in Cr.No.326/22.
8.

The offences alleged in the FIR which are
punishable u/Sec.323, 324 and 325 of IPC are bailable in
nature. Further the name of the petitioner is not mentioned in
the first information given by Sanjay before the police.
Further in the FIR also the name of petitioner is not
mentioned. The accused No.2 and 3 against whom similar
offences are alleged were already enlarged on bail by the
learned magistrate u/Sec.437 of Cr.P.C. Since the alleged
offences are bailable in nature, there is no apprehension of
arrest of the petitioner by the respondent police. Further the
name of the petitioner is also not found in the FIR or in the
complaint. Anticipatory bail u/Sec.438 of Cr.P.C. can be
granted to those persons who have got reasonable
apprehension of their arrest with respect to commission of
non-bailable offence. In this case the offences alleged are
not non-bailable in nature and there is no apprehension of
arrest of the petitioner by the respondent police. As such, I
am of the opinion that it is not fit case to grant anticipatory
bail to the petitioner. If the respondent police issue any notice
to the petitioner by including him as one of the accused in the
case, the petitioner can seek regular bail from the respondent
5
Crl.Misc.No.599/2023
police or from the learned magistrate as a matter of right by
furnishing surety. As such, I am of the opinion that the
petition filed by the petitioner is deserves to be dismissed.
Accordingly, I answer the above point in the Negative.
9.

Point No.2:- In view of my findings on point
No.1, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
The petition filed by the petitioner u/Sec.438 of
Cr.P.C., is hereby dismissed.
(Dictated to the Stenographer directly on computer, corrected
and then pronounced by me in the open court on this the 2nd
day of February, 2023).

(B.G.Pramoda)
LII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bangalore.

6
Crl.Misc.No.599/2023
7
Crl.Misc.No.599/2023
Order pronounced in the open court
(vide separate order)
ORDER
The petition filed by the petitioner C.N. u/s.438 of
Cr.P.C., is hereby dismissed.

LII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bangalore.

8
Crl.Misc.No.599/2023
9
Crl.Misc.No.599/2023