1
Crl.Misc.No.3217/2024
KABC010090782024
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 8th Day of April, 2024.
Crl.Misc.No.3217/2024
PETITIONER
1. Mr.Nandan Kumar
S/o Suresh
Aged about 27 years
R/at Brightway school
Near Shanimahathma temple,
Devara Bisanahalli Village,
Marathhalli Ring road,
Bengaluru
2. Mr.Bharath Kumar S
S/o Sadashivaiah
Aged about 24 years
R/at No.143,
Near Brightway school
NearShanimahathma temple,
Devara Bisanahalli Village,
Marathhalli Ring road,
Bengaluru
(BY Sri.Chandra Reddy Adv)
Crl.Misc.No.3217/2024
2
V/s
RESPONDENT
State of Karnataka
By Belandur Police Station,
Bengaluru.
(Rep. by: Public Prosecutor)
ORDER
This is a petition filed by the petitioners under
Section 439 of Cr.P.C for grant of regular bail in
Cr.No.171/2024
for
the
offence
punishable
under
Sec.307 of IPC pending on the file of XLI Addl. Chief
Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru.
2.
Petitioner has sought for bail on the grounds
that,they are innocent of the alleged offence. Mr.Joseph
Kumar has discharged from the hospital. The respondent
police have registered a false case against the petitioners.
They have not committed any offence. They have aged
parents. They are ready and willing to abide by the
conditions that may be imposed.
Crl.Misc.No.3217/2024
3
3. The prosecution has filed statement of objections
narrating the facts of the case. Further the prosecution
papers prima facie discloses the involvement of the
petitioners. If the petitioners are released on bail they
may tamper with the prosecution witnesses and evidence.
They may not appear before the court regularly. They
may not cooperate with the investigation. They may
abscond.
The
alleged
offence
is
punishable
with
imprisonment for a period of 10 years and fine. Hence
sought for dismissal of the petition.
4.
Heard the arguments of both sides.
5.
The
following
points
arise
for
determination:
1. Whether the petitioners are entitled for
regular bail as provided under Section 439
of Cr.P.C.?
2. What order?
my
4
6.
Crl.Misc.No.3217/2024
My findings on the above said points are as
follows;
Point No.1
:
In the Negative.
Point No.2
:
As per final order, for the
following :
REASONS
7.
Point No.1: As could be seen from the
prosecution papers produced by the petitioner, the
complainant lodged the complaint alleging that she has
two children out of them one Mr.Joseph Kumar is
working in Zepto. On 25.03.2024 at about 11.30 a.m he
went to the company. He used to come to the house
before 9.30 p.m. On 25.03.2024 night bout 11.30 p.m
one Mr.Narzal has called the said Smt.Mala through her
mobile stating that Mr.Joseph Kumar got a wound in his
head i.e. someone might have been made the said wound
through a long near Zepto company office. Immediately
she left to the spot and the injured was taken to the
Crl.Misc.No.3217/2024
5
Sakra hospital for giving treatment. For better treatment
she took him to Victoria hospital. Thereafter she came to
know that one Mr.Nandan and Bharath the petitioners
have committed the said incident. Hence she lodged the
complaint against the petitioners.
8.
It is argued by the learned counsel for petitioner
that he is innocent of the alleged offence. The victim was
not
sustained
any
grievous
injuries.
He
has
not
committed any offence. The prosecution has objected for
grant of bail on the ground that, the alleged offence is
heinous in nature and is punishable with imprisonment
for 10 years. The petitioners have not produced any
medical certificates of injured to know that the alleged
injuries are simple or grievous. If the petitioners are
granted bail, they may abscond. They may threaten the
prosecution
witnesses.
The
investigation
is
under
progress. Under such circumstances if the petitioners are
released on bail they would threaten the prosecution
Crl.Misc.No.3217/2024
6
witnesses and may tamper the prosecution evidence.
Further the petitioners may commit similar offence.
Considering the nature and gravity of offence, the
petitioners are not entitled for bail. Accordingly point is
answered in the Negative.
9.
Point No.2:
In view of my findings on point
No.1, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
The petition filed by the petitioners under
Section 439 of Cr.P.C., is hereby dismissed.
(Dictated to the Stenographer directly on computer, corrected and then pronounced
by me in the Open Court on this the 8th Day of April, 2024)
(T.Govindaiah)
LVI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru.
7
Crl.Misc.No.3217/2024
Order pronounced in open Court
(Vide separate order)
ORDER
The petition filed by the
petitioners under Section 439 of
Cr.P.C., is hereby dismissed.
LVI Addl.City Civil & Sessions
Judge, Benguru.