1 Crl.Misc.No.2802/2024 KABC010078352024 IN THE COURT OF THE LVI ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU (CCH 57) : Present : Sri.T.Govindaiah, B.Com., LL.B., LVI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru. Dated this the 25th Day of March, 2024. Crl.Misc.No.2802/2024 PETITIONER 1. Mr.Martin S/o Premkumar Aged about 35 years R/at No.425, 10th A Cross 4th T Block, Bengaluru South Bengaluru (By Sri.Prasanna Kumar K.P.Advocate) V/s RESPONDENT State of Karnataka By: Puttenahalli Police Station, Bengaluru. (Rep. by: Public Prosecutor) 2 Crl.Misc.No.2802/2024
ORDER
The petitioner has filed this petition under section 438 of Cr.P.C., for bail in the event of his arrest in Crime No.92/2024 for the offences punishable under sections 307, 504, 506 and 324 read with section 34 of IPC registered by the respondent police on the file of XXX ACMM, Bengaluru, by allowing this petition in the ends of justice.
2. The petitioner has sought for anticipatory bail on the
grounds that, he is innocent of the alleged offences. He has been falsely implicated. He has not assaulted the complainant not his son. There is an inordinate delay in filling the complaint. The injured was already taken the treatment and discharged from the hospital. The alleged offences are not punishable with death or life imprisonment. No prima facie case is made out against the petitioner. There is no specific overt act against the petitioner. He hails from respectable family. He has got deep roots in the society. He is a permanent resident of Bengaluru. He is ready to abide by the conditions that may be imposed. 3 Crl.Misc.No.2802/2024
3. The learned Public Prosecutor has filed statement of
objections narrating the facts of the case. Prima facie the prosecution papers discloses the involvement of the petitioner in the alleged offence. The alleged offence is punishable with imprisonment for the period of 10 years. If the petitioner is released on bail, he may commit similar offence and he may tamper the prosecution witnesses. He may abscond from the jurisdiction of the court and then fair investigation cannot be conducted. Hence, at this stage, the petitioner is not entitled for bail.
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 anticipatory bail under section 438 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 4 Crl.Misc.No.2802/2024 Point No.2: As per the final order for the following; R E A S O N S
7. POINT NO.1: As could be seen from the prosecution
papers it reveals that, on 15.03.2024 at about 3.00 p.m the complainant went to the hotel by name Nati stall situated at J.P.Nagar, Bengaluru to enquire about the brokerage commission for Rs.32,000/. In the meantime it is alleged that, accused No.1 assaulted by his hands on the face of the complainant, further the sons of complainant by name Prajwal and Kaushik came to be spot and asked to why the accused No.1 assaulted to his father. It is further alleged that, the accused No.1 called the accused No.3 alleging that, the complainant brought some rowdy elements and troubling the accused No.1. Further the accused No.3 came to the spot and kicked the complainant and also the accused No.1 along with his brother assaulted the sons of the complainant with a hook which is used for the purpose of cooking and also it is alleged that, the accused threatened the complainant with dire consequences to do away with the life of complainant. It is 5 Crl.Misc.No.2802/2024 further alleged that, the complainant got 16 stitches and his son Kaushik got 5 stitches on the back of head and another son by name Prajwal got 2 stitches on his forehead. Hence the complainant lodged the complaint.
8. But as rightly submitted by the learned counsel for
the petitioner, there is no specific overt act attributed against this petitioner. The alleged offence under Sec.307 of IPC is punishable with imprisonment for 10 years. The investigation is not yet completed and charge sheet is not yet filed. The accused is absconding accused. If he is granted the relief. He may abscond from the jurisdiction. He may threaten the prosecution witnesses and complainant. He may not co operate with the investigating officer. Under all these circumstances and also considering the nature and gravity of the offences, it is not fit case to extend the discretionary power in favour of the petitioner and hence, he is not entitled for bail. In view of the above reasons, I answer the point No.1 in the “Negative”. 6 Crl.Misc.No.2802/2024
9. POINT NO.2: In the result for the reasons stated
above, I proceed to pass the following; O R D E R The bail petition filed by the petitioner under section 438 of Cr.P.C., is hereby dismissed. (Dictated to the stenographer directly on computer, corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in the open court on this the 25th day of March, 2024) (T.Govindaiah) LVI Addl. City Civil And Sessions Judge (CCH57) 7 Crl.Misc.No.2802/2024 Order pronounced in open Court (Vide separate order)
ORDER
The bail petition filed by the petitioner under section 438 of Cr.P.C., is hereby dismissed. LVI Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru. 8 Crl.Misc.No.2802/2024