KABC010089252024
IN THE COURT OF THE LXII ADDL.CITY CIVIL &
SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY [CCH.63]
Dated: This the 6 th day of April 2024
Present: Sri. A. EARANNA, M.Com., LLM.,
LXII Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru City.
Crl.Misc.No.3164/2024
Petitioners:
1. Kalavathi
Aged about 38 years
R/at No.14/25, 5th Cross,
Mallasandra main road,
Opp. Arunodaya Hospital,
T.Dasarahalli,
Bengaluru-560 057
2. Upendra Kumar
S/o Ramakrishnaiah
Aged about 40 years
R/at 14/25, 5th Cross,
Mallasandra main road,
Opp. Arunodaya Hospital,
T.Dasarahalli,
Bengaluru-560 057
(By Nanjegowda H G, Advocate).
Vs.

2
Respondent:
Crl.Misc.No.3164/2024
State by Bagalagunte
Police station,
Bengaluru.
Rep. by Public Prosecutor.
OR D E R
The petition is filed by the petitioners/accused under
Section 438 of Cr.P.C for an order of anticipatory bail.
2.

On the strength of complaint the Bagalagunte
police have registered the case in Crime No.123/2024 for
the offence punishable under Sections 323, 326A, 504 and
506 R/w. Sec. 34 of I.P.C.
3.

In the bail petition, it is contended that the
petitioners are innocents and they have not committed the
alleged offences. The complainant has filed this complaint
only to take revenge against the petitioners.

The alleged
offences are not punishable with death or imprisonment for
life, all offences are triable by Magistrate. The petitioners are
the permanent resident of their address shown in the cause
title of the petition. Petitioners are hailed from respected
families. The petitioners are having deep roots in the society.
The petitioners are ready to abide by any conditions that
may be imposed by the Court and they are ready to furnish
3
Crl.Misc.No.3164/2024
surety to ensure their regular attendance before the
concerned
Court.

Inter
alia,
on
these
grounds,
the
petitioners pray to allow the bail petition.
4.

Whereas, the learned Public Prosecutor filed
objection, by contending that the petitioners have committed
the offences punishable under Sections 323, 326A, 504 and
506 r/w 34 of I.P.C. At this stage, if the petitioners are
granted with anticipatory bail, the petitioners may threaten
the prosecution witnesses and they may destroy the
prosecution evidence or they may commit the similar kind of
offences and the possibility of petitioners fleeing away from
justice cannot be ruled out. Inter alia, on these grounds, the
learned Public Prosecutor prays to dismiss the bail petition.
5.

Heard both sides. Perused the record.

6.

Following points arise for consideration of this
Court:
1.

Whether the petitioners have made out
ground to enlarge them on anticipatory
bail under Section 438 of Cr.P.C.?

2.

What Order?

7.
follows:
My findings on the above Points are as
4
Crl.Misc.No.3164/2024
Point No.1 – In the Affirmative
Point No.2
– As per Final Order, for the
following:
R E A S ON S
8. Point No.1: Counsel for the petitioners argued that
the petitioners have not committed any offence as alleged
by
the
respondent
police.

Alleged
offences
are
not
punishable with life imprisonment or death sentence. The
petitioners are ready to abide by the conditions imposed by
the Court. Therefore he prays to allow the bail petition.
9.

Learned Public Prosecutor have argued that, the
case is under investigation. If the petitioners are released
on bail then there is chances of abscond and there is
chances of hamper and tamper the prosecution witnesses.
Therefore prays to reject the bail petition.
10. On perusal of the prosecution papers, it reveals
that one Kiran has lodged the complaint. Based on the
complaint, the respondent police have registered the case
in Cr.No.123/2024 for the offence punishable under
Sections 323, 326A, 504 and 506 R/w. Sec. 34 of I.P.C.
That one Ramakrishnaiah who is the father of the
5
complainant
has
self
Crl.Misc.No.3164/2024
acquired
property
opposite
to
Arunodaya hospital, 5th cross, No.14/25. One Kalavathi
who is the daughter of Ramakrishnaiah with intention to
grab the said property made galata with the complainant
not to come to the house of the said Ramakrishnaiah. That
on 22.03.2024 night at about 9.00 pm., when the
complainant
went
to
the
house
of
his
father
Ramakrishnaiah regarding Thithikarya of his mother, then
the said Ramakrishna abused in filthy language and put
some chemical on his eye and chest and caused injuries to
the complainant chest and eye. Hence the complainant
lodged the complaint.
11.

It is utmost contention of learned counsel for
the petitioner that, the victim already got discharged from
the hospital. On the other hand the prosecution have not
disputed the fact that discharge of the victim from the
hospital. It is vehement contention of learned public
prosecutor that, mere on discharge of the victim, the
petitioner are not entitled for the bail. After ascertain both
the claim of the parties that it is not much disputed fact
that, the injured of this crime got discharged from the
hospital.

Petitioner No.1 is the sister of the complainant
and petitioner No.2 is the brother of the complainant. On
perusal of th above said records, it reveals that there is
6
Crl.Misc.No.3164/2024
property dispute between the parties. Admittedly, the
alleged offence under section 326A is not bailable in
nature, but the offences are triable by the Court of
Magistrate.

On going through the records, there is civil
dispute between the parties. The I.O. has stated in the
report stating that the accused person sprayed some
chemical on the face and chest of the complainant and he
has taken treatment and also discharged from the hospital.
Even on perusal of the I.O. Report, he has not sought for
custodial interrogation nor recovery from the petitioners. It
shows that there is a civil dispute between both the parties.
If the petitioners are sent behind the bars, then it will take
multiple cases and multiple litigations as they are the
relatives and there is a property dispute between them.
Moreover, the prosecution has not produced any other
documents to show that the present petitioners are
habitual offenders and apart from this case, there are other
cases are pending against the petitioners.
12. The petitioners claims to be the permanent
residents of address shown in the cause title of the bail
petition. It is urged that the petitioners are ready and
willing to furnish surety to the satisfaction of this Court to
ensure their attendance before the I.O and the Court and
he is also ready to abide by any conditions imposed by
7
Court.

As
such,
possibility
Crl.Misc.No.3164/2024
of
the
abscondance
of
petitioners is too remote.

13. The apprehension and interest of the prosecution
that the petitioners may tamper with the prosecution
witnesses, flee away from justice can be taken and
safeguarded by imposing some suitable conditions. Hence
by considering all these aspects, I am of the opinion that
the petitioners are entitled for bail and accordingly, I
answer the above Point No.1 in the Affirmative.
14. Point No.2: In view of my findings on Point No.1,
I proceed to pass the following:
OR D E R
The anticipatory bail petition filed by
the petitioners under Section 438 of Cr.P.C
is hereby allowed.
The
directed
respondent
police
to
the
enlarge
are
hereby
petitioners
on
anticipatory bail in the event of their arrest
in Crime No.123/2024 of respondent Police
Station for the offence punishable under
Sections 323 326A, 504, 506 r/w. Section
34 of I.P.C. on execution of their personal
8
Crl.Misc.No.3164/2024
bond for Rs.1,00,000/- each with
one
separate surety for the like sum, on the
following conditions:
1.That
the petitioners shall appear
before the I.O. within 30 days from the date
of this order and shall co-operate in the
matter of investigation or whenever called
by the I.O.
2. That the petitioners shall mark their
attendance once in 30 days preferably on
2nd Saturday in between 10.00 AM to 5.00
PM before the Jurisdictional Police till filing
the final report.
3. That the petitioners shall not hold
any threat to the complainant and shall not
tamper
with
any
of
the
prosecution
witnesses directly or indirectly.
4. That the petitioners shall furnish
their residential address proof and that of
their surety.
5. That the petitioners shall not indulge
in similar type of offences in future.

9
Crl.Misc.No.3164/2024
6. That the petitioners shall appear
before the trial court regularly without fail
on receipt of the summons.
7. That if the petitioners fails to obey
any of the above said conditions, then this
bail order automatically stands canceled.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, typed by her directly on computer,
printout taken thereof is corrected, signed and then pronounced
by me in Open Court on this the 6 th day of April, 2024).

(A. EARANNA)
LXII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru City.