KABC010081262024 Presented on : 21-03-2024 Registered on : 21-03-2024 Decided on : 05-04-2024 Duration : 0 years, 0 months, 14 days IN THE COURT OF THE LXIV ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH-65) AT BENGALURU) Dated this 5th day of April 2024 -: P R E S E N T :- Smt. Kalpana M.S., B.Sc., LL.M.,PGD-CLCF., LXIV ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, CCH-65, BENGALURU CITY. Crl.Misc.No. 2891 /2024 PETITIONER : 1. Mr.Shakthivel, S/o. Aiyanar, Aged about 30 years, R/at. 28th Cross, Near Masjid, Jayanagar 9th Block, Bangalore South, Bengaluru-560 011. (Accused No.1) 2 Crl.Misc.No.2891/2024 ( By Sri. Santhosh.A Advocate) /Vs/ RESPONDENT : State of Karnataka by Thilak Nagara, Police Station, Bengaluru. (Rep. By Learned Public Prosecutor) ORDERS ON BAIL APPLICATION U/S.439 OF CR.P.C. Petitioner/accused No.1 has filed this petition U/s.439 of Cr.P.C., praying this court for grant of regular bail in SC.No.1103/2022 arising out of Cr.No.176/2014 of Thilaknagar Police Station, Bengaluru for the offences punishable U/s. 397 of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred as I.P.C.) pending on the file of this court. (CCH- 65.)

2. Learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the

State has filed statement of objections opposing the bail petition. 3 Crl.Misc.No.2891/2024

3. For the purpose of brevity, the facts stated in

the petition and objections statement will be stated at the appropriate stage of orders.

4. Heard arguments. Perused the materials on

record.

5. The points do arise for my consideration are;

Whether petitioner/accused No.1 is entitled for grant of regular bail U/s.439 of Cr.P.C.,? What Order?

6. For the reasons stated hereinafter, my findings to the

above points are as under; Point No.1: In the Affirmative. Point No.2: As per final order, for the following:- 4 Crl.Misc.No.2891/2024 R E A S O N S

7. POINT No.1:- Along with petition, certified copies

of complaint, F.I.R. in Cr.No.176/2014, charge sheet, order sheet in SC.No.1103/2022 are filed. Perused the same.

8. The facts set out in the charge sheet, in brief, is

as under; The case of the prosecution is that, on 07.06.2014 at about 11.40 p.m., during night times, when CW1 to CW3 were walking on jayanagara 9th Block, East End Main Road, in front of Chungs Chinese Hotel, at that time, accused persons have wrongfully restrained the CW1 to CW3 and voluntarily assaulted with knife on their stomach, hands, and caused bleeding injuries and snatched away Samsung Mobile worth of Rs.8,500/- and a Nokia mobile and fled from the spot. When complainant filed police complaint before the jurisdictional police. In pursuance of 5 Crl.Misc.No.2891/2024 the complaint, FIR is registered and proceeded with investigation and finally charge sheeted the accused persons.

9. Subsequently, the accused No.1 / petitioner was

produced before the II ACMM Court, Bengaluru and remanded to judicial custody. He was enlarged on bail. After committal he remained absent. Proclamation issued and split up SC.No.1103/2022 was registered. Recently, respondent police have produced the accused No.1 under proclamation and remanded to judicial custody. When the matter is set down for arguments, present petition is filed.

9. Learned Counsel for the petitioner argued that,

the petitioner/accused No.1 is absolutely innocent of the alleged offences. He has not committed said offences. He has been falsely implicated in this case at the instigation of the respondent for their statistical purpose. Alleged spot is just 1 km away from the respondent police station and it is 6 Crl.Misc.No.2891/2024 a beat point. Hence, version of complainant that accused persons assembled on the alleged spot is unbelievable and ridiculous story. He is neither directly nor indirectly involved in the said case. He has got valid and tenable defence. It is further contented that, other accused persons are already on bail. Investigation is completed, charge sheet is filed. The petitioner has permanent place of abode at Bengaluru. He is ready to abide by the terms and conditions that may be imposed by this court. Learned counsel submits that, the petitioner has made out prima facie case for grant of regular bail.

10. A perusal of the case papers show that, accused

is not regular in appearance before the trial court as well as before this court. Initially, he was granted with bail with conditions. Subsequently, he jumped the bail and violated the conditions. Though, this successive bail application is filed by assigning the reason of ill-health, however, the 7 Crl.Misc.No.2891/2024 discharge summary produced before the court is of the year

2020. The reasons for non-appearance from the date of

jumping bail till securing him before this court under body warrant is neither explained nor produced relevant medical documents. It is worth to note that, the trial is completed, statement of accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. is recorded and the matter is set down for final arguments on 21.07.2022. At that point of time, he was released in the original case. Thereafter, he remained absent before the court and again secured under warrant. This conduct of the accused shows that he is not a law abiding citizen and frequently jumping the bail.

11. Another case is also pending against this

accused person, which is evident from the fact of securing him before the court under body warrant. He is an habitual offender. Criminal antecedents of the petitioner 8 Crl.Misc.No.2891/2024 is one of the prime factor for consideration to exercise discretion in favour of the petitioner.

12. In the decision of the Hon'ble High Court

of Karnataka reported in 2018 SCC OnLine Kar 1822;Manikantan @ Bombe Ramesh Vs. State of Karnataka, the Hon'ble Court pleased to observe that; “…one of the factors to be considered in granting of bail is the antecedents of the accused. If the accused is found to be a habitual offender, then his bail application can be rejected. Since the material on record prima facie showed the petitioner's involvement in crime. The report of the investigating officer shows that, the petitioner is involved in 21 other cases apart from this case. Having regard to these facts, it is not a fit case for grant of bail. 9 Crl.Misc.No.2891/2024 The dictum of law is squarely applicable to this case. Similar to the facts and circumstances of cited decision, in the present case also, the petitioner/accused No.1 is involved in similar offences.

13. In the latest decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court

reported in (2022) 4 SCC 497 Brijmanidevi V/s. Pappu Kumar and another, 3 Judges Bench of the Hon'ble Court laid down principles that must be kept in mind for grant of bail. In the said decision, it is observed that; “ though the period of custody is a relevant factor, the same has to be weighed simultaneously with the totality of the circumstances and the criminal antecedents – Further, these are to be weighed in the scale of collective cry and desire and that societal concern has to be kept in view in juxtaposition to individual liberty.” It is further observed that; “While we are conscious of the fact that liberty of an individual is an invaluable 10 Crl.Misc.No.2891/2024 right, at the same time while considering an application for bail Courts cannot lose sight of serious nature of the accusations against an accused and the facts that have a bearing in the case, particularly, when the accusations may not be false, frivolous or vexatious in nature but are supported by adequate material brought on record so as to enable a Court to arrive at a prima facie conclusion. While considering an application for grant of bail a prima facie conclusion must be supported by reasons and must be arrived at after having regard to the vital facts of the case brought on record. Due consideration must be given to facts suggestive of the nature of crime, the criminal antecedents of the accused, if any, and the nature of punishment that would follow a conviction vis-a-vis the offences alleged against an accused.” The ratio is aptly applicable to case on hand. In case of grant of bail, it would send wrong message to society in general and prospective offender in particular. Considering the serious nature and gravity of the offence and the punishment prescribed for the alleged offence and 11 Crl.Misc.No.2891/2024 conduct of the accused persons, this Court is not inclined to extend the relief in favour of the petitioners. In the event of grant of bail, there is more chances of repetition of similar offence and also tampering of witnesses. As there are no grounds made out to release the petitioner on bail, this Court is of the opinion that, petitioner is not entitled for grant of bail. Therefore, point No.1 is answered in the Negative.

15. POINT NO.2: In view of the aforesaid discussion,

this court proceed to pass the following : O R D E R Anticipatory bail petition U/s.438 of Cr.P.C., filed by the petitioner/accused No.4 is rejected. (Dictated to the Stenographer Grade-I, transcribed by her, then corrected, signed and pronounced by me in open court on this 5th day of April 2024). (KALPANA M.S.) LXIV ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, CCH-65, BENGALURU CITY. 12 Crl.Misc.No.2891/2024 13 Crl.Misc.No.2891/2024 Order pronounced in the open Court, vide separate Order:- O R D E R Bail petition U/s.439 of Cr.P.C., filed by the petitioner/accused No.1 is rejected. LXIV ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, CCH-65, BENGALURU CITY. 14 Crl.Misc.No.2891/2024