IN THE COURT OF THE LVIII ADDL.CITY CIVIL AND
SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH-59), BENGALURU CITY.
Dated this the 1st day of July, 2022
PRESENT:
Sri.N.Krishnaiah, B.Sc., LL.B.,
LVIII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge (CCH-59),
Bengaluru City.
CRL.MISC.No.6067/2022
PETITIONER
:
Halesha.S,
S/o Sanna Veeranna,
Aged about 23 years,
Residing at Jyothi’s House,
4th Cross, 3rd Main,
Near St.Mary School,
Kalyana Nagar,
T.Dasarahalli,
Bengaluru.
Native Address:
Hoovinahole Village,
Dharmapura Post,
Hiriyur Taluk,
Chitradurga District.
(By Sri.Nanjegowda, Advocate)
V/S
RESPONDENT
:
The State of Karnataka by
Bagalagunte Police Station,
Bengaluru.
(By Learned Public Prosecutor)
2
C.Misc.No.6067/2022
C.Misc.No.3701/2020
ORDER ON BAIL APPLICATION U/S 439 OF CR.P.C.
The petitioner has filed this petition under section 439
of Cr.P.C., seeking to enlarge him on regular bail in Crime
No.203/2022 for the offences punishable under sections
326, 448, 504 and 511 of IPC registered by the respondent
police, pending on the file of 31st Additional Metropolitan
Magistrate, Bengaluru, by allowing this petition in the ends
of justice.

2.

He has further contended that, he is absolutely
innocent and he has been falsely implicated in this case.
There is no specific allegation made in the complaint as
himself
was
attempting
to
cut
down
the
wire.

The
complainant has not mentioned the name or correct
identification of the person, who was cutting the wire. The
complainant might have fall down and sustained injuries.
He never assaulted the complainant with any weapon. The
respondent police have not seized any weapon from his
possession.

No test identification parade was conducted.

He has been in judicial custody and hence, he is not
required for further investigation. He hails from respectable
3
C.Misc.No.6067/2022
C.Misc.No.3701/2020
family and having deep roots in the society. He has no
previous bad antecedents. He is a permanent resident of
the address mentioned in the cause title. He is ready and
willing to offer surety and he is ready to abide by any terms
and conditions that may be imposed by this court.

Hence,
he requests to allow this petition in the ends of justice.

3.

On the contrary, the learned Public Prosecutor has
filed his objections and strongly opposed to allow this
petition on the major ground that, there is sufficient prima
facie materials on record to show that, this petitioner has
committed the alleged offences. The investigation is in
progress. At this stage, if he is released on bail, he may
commit
similar
offences
and
he
may
terrorize
the
complainant and he may tamper the prosecution witnesses.
He may abscond from the jurisdiction of the court. Then fair
investigation cannot be conducted. Hence, at this stage, the
petitioner is not entitled for bail as prayed for in this
petition. Hence, he requests to reject this petition in the
ends of justice.

4
C.Misc.No.6067/2022
C.Misc.No.3701/2020
4.

In view of the aforesaid rival contentions, the
following points that would arise for my consideration are:
1. Whether the petitioner is entitled for
bail under section 439 of Cr.P.C. as
prayed for in this petition?

2. What Order?
5.

Heard arguments of both the sides and perused
the records.

6.

My finding to the above points are as follows:
Point No.1:- In the Negative
Point No.2:- As per the final order
for the following;
REASONS
7.

POINT NO.1:-
Based on the first information
initiated by the injured/complainant, the respondent police
have registered this case in crime No.203/2022 for the
offences punishable under sections 326, 448, 504 and 511
of IPC against this petitioner and send FIR. This petitioner
was arrested on 18.05.2022 and produced before learned
Magistrate and he was remanded to judicial custody. The
5
C.Misc.No.6067/2022
C.Misc.No.3701/2020
investigation is in progress. At this stage, this petitioner has
come up with this petition seeking regular bail on the major
ground that, there is no prima facie sufficient materials to
attract the alleged offences punishable under section 326 of
IPC. The other alleged offences are bailable in nature. He is
not required for further custodial interrogation as the
investigation is partly completed.
8.

But, as rightly pointed out by the learned Public
Prosecutor, on perusal of the entire materials on record,
there is prima facie materials on record to show that, on
17.05.2022 at about 6-45 am, when this petitioner came
inside under construction house of the complainant and
tried to cut down the electric wire. The complainant by
observing him and caught hold him. But, the petitioner
suddenly took an hammer and assaulted on the mouth, lips
and on the head of the complainant and ran away from the
spot. Due to said assault, the complainant has lost his three
tooth and sustained grievous injuries. Subsequently, the
complainant called his friends and relatives and he was
shifted to hospital and obtained treatment. Hence, there is a
6
C.Misc.No.6067/2022
C.Misc.No.3701/2020
prima facie sufficient materials on record to attract all the
ingredients of the offences punishable under sections 326,
448, 504 and 511 of IPC.

9.

Though, the alleged offence is not punishable with
death but it is punishable with life imprisonment. This
petitioner has not only tried to commit theft of electric wires
belongs to the complainant in his under construction house.
But, also assaulted with an hammer on the vital part of the
complainant
and
caused
grievous
injuries.

When
the
complainant has restrained the petitioner from committing
theft, he has assaulted and caused permanent disability by
losing his three tooth. Moreover, so far investigation is not
yet completed and charge sheet is not filed. This petitioner
is required for custodial interrogation. Therefore, at this
stage, if he is released on bail, he may commit similar
offence and he may terrorize the complainant and his
family. He may abscond from the jurisdiction of the court.
Then fair investigation cannot be conducted. Under all these
circumstances and also considering the nature and gravity
of the alleged offences against this petitioner, it is not a fit
7
C.Misc.No.6067/2022
C.Misc.No.3701/2020
case to extend the discretionary power in favour of this
petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner has not made out any
sufficient grounds to entertain this petition and to enlarge
him on bail. Therefore, the petition filed by the petitioner
lacks merit and the same is deserves to be rejected. In view
of the above reasons, I answer the point No.1 in the
“Negative”.
10.

POINT NO.2:-
In the result, for the reasons
stated above, I proceed to pass the following;
ORDER
The
bail
petition
filed
by
the
petitioner under section 439 of Cr.P.C. is
hereby rejected.

(Dictated to the Judgment Writer, transcribed by her,
corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in the open
court on this the 1st day of July, 2022)
(N.KRISHNAIAH)
LVIII ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND
SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH-59)
BENGALURU CITY.

8
C.Misc.No.6067/2022
C.Misc.No.3701/2020
Order pronounced in the open
Court (vide separate order)
ORDER
The bail petition filed by the
petitioner under section 439 of Cr.P.C.
is hereby rejected.

LVIII ADDL.CITY CIVIL AND
SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH-59),
BENGALURU CITY.

9
C.Misc.No.3701/2020
C.Misc.No.6067/2022