1
Crl.Misc.No.6021/2022
KABC010128572022
IN THE COURT OF LV ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS
JUDGE, BENGALURU (CCC-56)
: Present :
Sri.SHRIRAM NARAYAN HEGDE,
B.A., LL.M.,
LV Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru.
DATED: THIS THE 28th DAY OF JUNE 2022
Crl.Misc.No.6021 /2022
PETITIONER
::
K.N.PUNITH KUMAR
S/O K.M. NAGARAJ
AGED ABUOT 22 YEARS,
RESIDING AT K.GOLAHALLI VILLAGE,
KENGERI HOBLI,
BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK,
BENGALURU.
(Rep. by Sri.K.Nagendra Naik,Adv.)
Vs.

RESPONDENT
::
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA –
BY SBI RAILWAY PS
BENGALURU.
(Rep. by Public Prosecutor)
2
Crl.Misc.No.6021/2022
ORDER
The petitioner / accused No.8 has prayed this court to
grant bail under section 438 of Cr.P.C.
2.

On the complaint filed by one Sri.Prasanna W/o late
Huchayya, Home Guard working at Kengeri Railway Station,
a case is registered in Cr.No.68/2022 is filed at Bangalore
City Railway PS against the accused for the offences
punishable Section 143, 144, 147, 302, 201 r/w Section 149
of IPC.
3.

The case of the prosecution is that on 23.04.2022 the
complainant was deployed for duty from 9-00 p.m. to 9-00
a.m. at Kengeri Railway Station. At about 00-10 hours the
Station master informed the complainant that a dead body
is lying on the railway track near KM-12/800-900. Hence,
the complainant went to that place and saw the dead body
of a person aged about 40 years, but the dead on railway
track.

To inform the same he was returning to railway
station. During that time, near KM-12/500 right side 10 – 15
3
Crl.Misc.No.6021/2022
youths were pulling a person and assaulting him and when
he shown his torch towards their side they escaped from
the spot. He went near that place and found a dead body
of a person aged about 25 years in a pool of blood. He was
severely assaulted on his chest, stomach by a knife. Then
he informed this matter to the police and accordingly filed a
complaint and on that basis the aforesaid case is registered
against the accused.

4.

Now this petitioner in this petition contending that he
is an innocent person and not committed any offences. He
is falsely implicated in this case. At no point of time, he has
involved in the alleged crime. In the entire case records
there is no specific mention of the overt-act attributed by
this petitioner.

There is no prima facie case against this
petitioner. There is no ill-will or motive to the accused to
commit or indulge in such offences. The complainant has
not seen the face of the accused. There is no eye witnesses
to the incident. Even the friend of the deceased by name
4
Crl.Misc.No.6021/2022
Santosh who knew about the incident has not seen the
incident. Only on the assumption this accused is falsely
implicated.

The voluntary statement of this accused is
recorded as per whims and fancies of the police.

For no
fault of him the petitioner is in judicial custody since his
arrest. The alleged offences are not exclusively punishable
with death or imprisonment of life.
respectable family.

He has come from
He is permanent resident of address
shown in the cause title. He is ready and willing to abide by
the conditions that may be imposed by this court. Hence
prayed to allow the petition.

5.

Learned
Public
application by filing
Prosecutor
has
contested
this
detailed objections and additional
objections along with police report contending that there is
prima facie case against the accused for the offence of
murder. The investigation is still in progress. The statement
of witnesses are to be recorded. The alleged offence is
punishable with death or imprisonment for life. If this
5
Crl.Misc.No.6021/2022
accused is enlarged on bail he may tamer with prosecution
witnesses and he may abscond and he may hamper the
investigation. Hence, prayed to reject the bail application.
6.

Heard arguments and perused the records.

7.

Now the point for consideration is as follows.
“Whether the petitioner / accused No.8 has made out
sufficient grounds to grant bail by resorting to special
powers vested in this Court under Section 438 of
Cr.P.C.?”
8.

On the basis of the materials available on record my
finding to the above point is in the NEGATIVE for the
following.
REASONS
9.

I have gone through the entire materials available on
record. The case of the prosecution is that this petitioner
along with other accused committed murder of one
Bharath.

Now the petitioner is contending that he is
innocent persons and not committed any offence. At that
time of considering the bail, the following points are to be
considered.

6
Crl.Misc.No.6021/2022
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.

Nature of charge.
Nature o evidence.
Punishment to which the party may be liable if
convicted.
Whether the cause of justice would be thwarted
by him.
Chance of accused interfering with witnesses or
the prosecution or otherwise polluting the
process of justice.
Antecedents of a man who applied for bail to find
whether he has a bad record, particularly a
record which suggest that he is likely to commit
similar offences while on bail.

10. On going through the FIR, complaint, report of the
Investigating officer, it reveal that there is prima facie case
against this petitioner.

The alleged offence is punishable
with death or imprisonment for life. Considering the gravity
of the offence, the apprehension of the public prosecutor
cannot be ruled out.

11. At
the
time
of
arguments,
the
learned
public
prosecutor has contended that the bail cannot be granted
in the cases where
the allegations are of very serious
nature and require a detailed investigation. In support of
his contention he has relied upon the judgment of the
7
Crl.Misc.No.6021/2022
Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in 2021 (3) CRIMES 231
(SC)
–
M/S
SUPREME
INFRASTRCTURE
BHIWANDI
PVT.

LTD.

WADA
VS.

MANOR
STATE
OF
MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER, wherein it is held held
as under.
“While considering the an application (for grant of
anticipatory bail) the court has to consider the nature
of the offence, he role of the person, the likelihood of
his influencing the course of investigation, or
tampering with evidence (including intimidating
witnesses), likelihood of fleeing justice (such as
leaving the country) etc..”
12. In my opinion, the principle laid down above is
applicable o the facts of this case. Considering the gravity
of the offence and the evidence available against this
petitioner
there is every chance of absconding, if this
petitioner
is
threatening
enlarged
the
on
bail.

There
witnesses
and
also
is
chance
hampering
of
the
investigation. The investigation is in the initial stage. The
statement of the several witnesses is required to be
recorded and report of the FSL is to be obtained. Hence,
8
Crl.Misc.No.6021/2022
the petitioner has not made out a ground for grant of bail.
Accordingly, the above point is answered in the NEGATIVE
and proceed to pass the following.
ORDER
Bail petition filed by the petitioner / accused No.8
under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. is hereby REJECTED.
(Dictated to the Judgment Writer, transcribed by him and
corrected by me and then pronounced in the open court on
this the 28th day of JUNE 2022)
(SHRIRAM NARAYAN HEGDE),
LV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru. (CCH-56)
9
Crl.Misc.No.6021/2022
Order passed and pronounced in the
open court (vide separate order). The
operative portion of the order reads
thus:
ORDER
Bail petition filed by the
petitioner / accused No.8 under
Section 438 of Cr.P.C. is hereby
REJECTED.

LV ACC&SJ, Bangalore (CCH-56)