KABC010158702022
Presented on
Registered on
Decided on
Duration
: 14-06-2022
: 14-06-2022
: 21-06-2022
: 0 years, 0 months,
7 days
BEFORE THE LXVI ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS
JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY.
(CCH-67)
DATED: This the 21 st day of June, 2022
PRESENT
Sri. S. NATARAJ., BAL., LLB.
LXVI Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru
Crl.Misc.No. 5906 of 2022
Petitioner :
Respondent :
Manjunatha @ Manja @ Kooli,
S/o Mahalingappa Chennaveerappa,
Aged about 34 years,
R/at No.857, 6th Cross,
Near Jodi Water Tank,
Hongasandra, Begur Main Road,
Bommanahalli,
Bengaluru.
(Accused No.5)
(By Sri.Vivekananda.D, Adv.)
/Vs/
State by:
Basaveshwaranagar Police Station,
Bengaluru.
(By Public Prosecutor.)

Crl.Misc.No.5906/2022
2
ORDERS ON BAIL APPLICATION FILED UNDER
SEC.438 OF Cr.P.C.
Petitioner/accused filed bail petition under Section 438
Cr.P.C seeking anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest in
SC1713/2019 pending on the file of this Court charge
sheeted by respondent before the committal Court for the
offences punishable under Sections 364(A) and 342 read
with Section 34 of IPC.
2. The petitioner case in brief are as follows:
The respondent police registered case against him and
others on the complaint of complainant.

The petitioner
had obtained anticipatory bail in Crl.Mis.4814/2015 on
10.08.2015
thereafter
he
had
appeared
before
the
Magistrate Court and obtained regular bail and committed
the
case
to
the
district
Court
numbered
as
SC.No.578/2018. Due to absence of petitioner the case
was
split
up
against
him
and
registered
as
SC.No.1713/2019, his bond was forfeited, warrant has
been issued.

The respondent is making efforts to arrest
him. He is innocent of the offences alleged. He has been
Crl.Misc.No.5906/2022
3
falsely
implicated,
the
offences
are
not
exclusively
punishable with death or imprisonment for life.

The
summons was not served on him. Hence, he could not
appear before the Court. He is ready and willing to abide
by the conditions and prayed to allow the petition.
3. The prosecution filed its objections contending
that the petition is not maintainable, the petitioner and
other accused persons have kidnapped the complainant for
ransom and wrongfully confined, collected amount of
Rs.2,28,000/-. The offence alleged is heinous, if the
petitioner is released he may commit similar offences and
prayed to dismiss the petition.
4. Heard the arguments of both sides and perused
the record.
5. Out of above said facts and circumstances of the
case, the points that arose for consideration are as under:
Point No.1: Whether the petitioner is entitled
for anticipatory bail on the
complaint
of
Sri.Sukhdev.M.Solanki registered
by the respondent?
Point No.2: What Order?

4
Crl.Misc.No.5906/2022
6. My answer to the above points are as under:
Point No.1: In the Negative
Point No.2: As per the final order for the
following reasons.:
REASONS
7. Point No.1: After hearing the contentions of both
sides I have gone through the material on record, the
allegations in the charge sheet is that accused Nos.1 to 5
in furtherance of common intention to collect amount
illegally form CW-1 on 19.10.2014 at 8:30 p.m. forcibly
taken the complainant in a Tata Itios car bearing Reg.No
KA-01 AB-7073 to Sondekoppa Village, Kunigal Taluk,
Tumkur District, confined wrongfully in a poultry farm
forced him to get Rs.10 lakhs, threatened and collected
amount from the complainant thereby committed the
offences.
8. The record discloses, during crime stage this
petitioner accused No.5 has obtained anticipatory bail
thereafter he has appeared before the learned Magistrate in
CC.No.26553/2015 and obtained regular bail. Thereafter
the trial Court after taking cognizance has committed the
Crl.Misc.No.5906/2022
5
case and numbered as SC.No.578/2018 in which the
petitioner remained absent inspite of cohersive steps, case
against
him
was
split
up
and
numbered
SC.No.1713/2019 and issued warrant against him.

as
Now
he has come up with instant petition for anticipatory bail.
Before considering the merits of the case maintainability of
the petition is to be considered, since he has already
appeared and obtained bail and thereafter he remained
absent the warrant has been issued. So, in this regard it is
useful to refer judgment of Hon’ble High Court in
Crl.P.No.9975/2021 dated 21.01.2022 in Ramesh V/s
DY.RFO,
Hosur
Section,
Gauribidanur
Range,
Chikkaballapura District, wherein his Lordship has held
“Once accused appeared before the trial Court thereafter
on account of his absence warrant has been issued by the
Court for deliberate absence, the remedy of anticipatory
bail under Section 438 CrPC is not maintainable to such
person.”
9. So, in view of the above said dictum of the Hon’ble
High Court petitioner is not entitled for anticipatory bail.
Accordingly, answer the point in Negative.

Crl.Misc.No.5906/2022
6
10. POINT No.2:- In view of findings given on point
No.1, this Court pass the following order.
ORDER
The
petition
filed
by
the
petitioner/
accused – Manjunatha @ Manja @ Koli under
Section 438 Cr.P.C. is rejected.
(Dictated to the Judgment Writer directly on computer,
corrected by me and then pronounced in the open Court on
this the 21st day of June, 2022).
(S. NATARAJ),
LXVI Addl.CC & SJ, Bangalore.

7
Crl.Misc.No.5906/2022
The Order is pronounced in
the open Court (vide separate
Order).
ORDER
The petition filed by the
petitioner/ accused – Manjunath
@ Manja @ Koli under Section
438 Cr.P.C. is rejected.
LXVI Addl.CC & SJ,
Bangalore.

8
Crl.Misc.No.5906/2022