1
Crl.Misc. No.3156/2024
KABC010089002024
IN THE COURT OF THE LX ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS
JUDGE, BENGALURU (CCH-61)
:PRESENT:
Sri Narashimsa M.V., B.Com., LL.B.,
LX Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City.
Dated this the 8th day of March, 2024.
Crl.Misc.No. 3156/2024
PETITIONER:-
Sri. Rajesh Kumar K.,
S/o. Late Krishnappa,
Aged about 43 years,
R/at No.32, 1st Main Road,
2nd Cross, Suddaguntepalya,
Balaji Nagara, D.R.College Post,
Bengaluru-560 029.
(Rep by Sri.S.K., Advocate)
-VS-
RESPONDENT:-
The State of Karnataka
By: Suddaguntepalya Police Station,
Bengaluru.
(By Public Prosecutor)
ORDER
Accused in Suddaguntepalya Police Station, Cr No.99/2024
has filed this bail application under Sec. 439 of Cr.P.C., praying for
bail. He is alleged to have committed offences punishable U/s. 304
and 201 of IPC.

2
Crl.Misc. No.3156/2024
2.

Brief facts and grounds urged in the petition are as
under:That,
on
17.03.2024
Mr.RameshKumar came to
at
5-00
p.m.

in
the
evening
police station and informed that his
father Mr.H.Krishnappa had passed away. In first information it is
stated that Ramesh Kumar received a call from his elder brother,
Mr.Rajesh Kumar ( Accused ) Thereafter he went to his elder
brother’s house, saw the dead body, and performed pooja. While
dead body was taking to grave yard he found injuries on the head
of dead body. As such a complaint was lodged in Suddaguntepalya
Police Station under UDR No.7/2024 under Section 174(3)(iv) of
Cr.P.C has been registered . During investigation, post-mortem
was
conducted on the body of Mr.H.Krishnappa, the doctor
declared the cause of death to be “due to shock and hemorrhage as
a result of blunt injuries sustained”. It was found that accused, in a
fit of anger, assaulted his elderly father H.Krishnappa aged about 68
years, causing injuries to his wrist and buttocks with a stick. The
accused neglected to provide proper treatment and instead took his
father to their rented house, where the next morning, upon
discovering his father’s demise, he failed to report it to the
authorities. Hence, complainant has been filed Suddaguntepalya
3
Crl.Misc. No.3156/2024
Police and Cr.No.99/2024 came to be registered by police.

3.

Petitioner /Accused
has filed this bail application on the
following grounds:The accused/petitioner is innocent of the alleged offences
levelled against him and he is falsely implicated in above case.
There is no prima-facie case against accused. The averment made
in complaint does not attract any of the offences much less the
offences mentioned in
complaint. Alleged offences are not
exclusively punishable with death or life imprisonment. It is further
submitted that
Ramesh Kumar is none other than
brother of
petitioner. He is residing separately from family of deceased and
he has enimity towards petitioner. Further said Ramesh Kumar
also filed suit in O.S.No.748/2022 on the file of Addl. City Civil and
Sessions Judge (CCH-5), at Bengaluru for the relief of partition and
separate possession against deceased, petitioner and his mother
Smt.Savithri. The petitioner and his mother are contesting the suit.
When
petitioner has not agreed to his demand and also when
there is no chance of winning the case, he taken advantage of the
situation and filed this false case against only with an intention to
pressurize the petitioner and to harass him.

On perusal of
4
Crl.Misc. No.3156/2024
complaint it shows that injuries said to have been caused are not
on vital part of deceased. Further the petitioner had no intention to
take away life of his father/deceased. Under such circumstances
the alleged offence under section 304 of IPC does not attract.
There is no eye-witnesses in the above said case. The entire case
rests upon circumstantial evidence. Further house owner who saw
deceased at the first instance had not found fictitious thing about
petitioner. If the alleged injuries are found he could have inform the
jurisdictional police. The petitioner is arrested on 20.03.2024 since
then, he is in J.C. The investigating officer has already arrested the
petitioner, interrogated and remanded to JC., the petitioner is not
required for the purpose of further investigation. The petitioner is the
bread earner of his family and also he is law abiding citizen and
having deep roots in
society and having permanent address
mentioned in the cause title. Hence there is no chance of fleeing
away from justice. If petitioner is not released on bail himself and
his dependents will be put to great and untold misery, he is ready
and willing to abide by all the terms and conditions that may be
imposed, upon his release on bail and provide adequate surety to
the entire satisfaction of court. Hence, he prays to allow the bail
application.

5
Crl.Misc. No.3156/2024
4.

Along with this the Leaned Public Prosecutor has filed
objections to bail application, with memo of instructions given by
investigating officer. In objections
entire averments of first
information are reiterated, it is stated that if accused is enlarged on
bail, he will threaten the witnesses, destruct the evidence and flee
away from jurisdiction of
court.

It
is stated that there are no
grounds to enlarge accused on bail and the grounds urged in bail
application are alll false and baseless.

5.

Learned counsel for petitioner filed copy of plaint in
O.S.No.7448/2022, written statement filed in the said case by
Smt.Savithri (wife of deceased and mother of accused), copy of
statement dated 30.06.2023 said to have been given by
H.Krishnappa.
6.

Heard both sides.

7.

The point that arises for my consideration is :
1.

8.

Whether bail application filed under Sec.439 of
Cr.P.C. by accused in Suddaguntepalya
Police station Crime No.99/2024 deserves to
be allowed?

My finding to the above point is in the Affirmative, for the
following :-
6
Crl.Misc. No.3156/2024
REASONS
9.

Point No.1:- Along with this bail application certified copy
of FIR, First information, Order sheet of learned Magistrate are
enclosed.
10.

Perusal of first information discloses that PSI Sri.

Karthik is the first informant. In first information it is stated by him
that Ramesh Kumar S/o. H.Krishnappa on 17.03.2024 came to
Suddaguntepalya Police Station and informed that his brother
Rajesh Kumar/petitioner/accused, called
and informed him that
their father is no more. Ramesh Kumar went to house of Rajesh
Kumar, performed rituals and while mortal remains of H.Krishnappa
were being taken to burial ground, Ramesh Kumar saw that on the
head of H.Krishnappa there were bleeding injuries. Hence a UDR
came to be registered, Post Mortem was conducted, Doctor opined
that the “death was due to shock and hemorrhage, as a result a
blunt injuries sustained”.
11. In first information it is further stated that Rajesh Kumar,
elder S/o. Krishnappa/petitioner/accused
was enquired, it was
disclosed that petitioner/accused on 16.03.2024 at about 8-00 p.m.
was called by his mother Savithramma, she told that her husband
has consumed high quantity
of alcohol and he is abusing and
7
Crl.Misc. No.3156/2024
beating her. Immediately Rajesh Kumar went to house and found
that his father was severely drunk was abusing everyone and
scolding
everyone.

In
first
information
it
is
stated
that
petitioner/accused in order to control H.Krishnappa hit him with a
stick and later on H.Krishnappa was brought to ground floor, at that
time H.Krishnappa slipped and fell on the edge of silencer of Royal
Enfield bike.
12.

It is further stated in first information that petitioner/
accused took H.Krishnappa to the house taken on rental basis. It is
further stated in first information that petitioner/accused ignored the
injury caused on the head of H.Krishnappa,
next day morning
H.Krishnappa was found dead. Thus offence U/Sec.304 of IPC viz.,
negligence is attributed to petitioner/accused.
13.

Even as per first information, the head injury caused to
H.Krishnappa is not due to any act committed by petitioner.
Whether the head injuries were caused to H.Krishnappa as soon as
his head came in contact with parked Enfield Motorcycle, whether
it was caused subsequently is a factor to be proved in evidence.
14.

It is necessary to note that
petitioner/accused has
infact dropped back his father to house. What transpired when
8
Crl.Misc. No.3156/2024
Savithramma, deceased Krishnappa and petitioner/accused were
together is to be spoken to by Savithramma.
15.

Copy of plaint in O.S.No.7448/2022 reveals that
younger son of Krishnappa by name Ramesh Kumar has filed a suit
for partition against his parents and petitioner/accused. Perusal of
the statement said to have been given by H.Krishnappa reveals that
the relationship between H.Krishnappa and Ramesh Kumar was not
cordial. It is the contention of counsel for petitioner/accused that
Rameshkumar has caused havoc in the life of his parents and
siblings, now even in
death of H.Krishnappa he wants to take
advantage. It is submitted that Ramesh Kumar is utilizing criminal
law as a tool to torture his mother and brother.
16.

It is necessary to note that as per the information given
by Ramesh Kumar his father’s dead body was seen by him in the
house of Rajesh Kumar/petitioner/accused. It is necessary to note
that there is no mention about Ramesh Kumar going to house in
which Krishnappa/deceased was living. It is necessary to note that
as per the confession statement of petitioner/accused which is part
and parcel of first information, the body of deceased was found in
the rented house.

9
Crl.Misc. No.3156/2024
17.

Before learned Magistrate an application U/Sec.437 of
Cr.P.C was filed. Learned Magistrate has rejected the application
on the ground that since the offence is triable by Sessions Court, it
would not be proper for learned Magistrate to exercise powers U/
Sec.437 of Cr.P.C and grant bail.

Except this reason no other
reason has been assigned by learned Magistrate for rejecting the
bail application.
18.

The contents of first information are self-explanatory,
according to first information head injures were caused to
H.Krishnappa as he fell on the silencer of Royal Enfield bike.
Undoubtedly bike’s silencer is an blunt object. It is specifically
stated in first information that H.Krishnappa, at that point of time
was severely drunk. What is the impact caused to an intoxicated
person and a normal person is a matter of evidence. Considering
the nature of relationship between
parties, the
civil
dispute
existing between Ramesh Kumar, his parents and his siblings.
Further taking into consideration past history of Ramesh Kumar, the
possibility of petitioner No.1/accused being falsely implicated cannot
be ruled-out.
19.

It is necessary to note here that police
custody of
petitioner/accused was sought. Learned Magistrate permitted it.

10
Crl.Misc. No.3156/2024
Substantial progress has been made in
investigation, only the
Forensic reports and Medical records are to be received.

No
purpose will be served if petitioner/accused is detained in custody.
The apprehension of prosecution case can be met by imposing
stringent conditions. Offence alleged against petitioner/accused is
not punishable with life or death imprisonment. Considering all
these aspects, I answer above point in the affirmative and proceed
to pass the following:
ORDER
Bail application filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. by
Petitioner/Accused in Suddaguntepalya Police station Crime No.
99/2024 is hereby allowed. Petitioner/ Accused shall be enlarged
on bail in Suddaguntepalya Police station Crime No.99/2024
subject to the following :
CONDITIONS
1. Petitioner/Accused shall execute personal bond for a sum
of Rs .50,000/- with one surety for the like-sum.
2. Petitioner/Accused shall not leave the jurisdiction of court
without prior permission of the court.
3. Petitioner/Accused shall not threaten the witnesses or
destruct the evidence collected against him.
4. Petitioner/Accused shall not involve in any kind of offence
henceforth.

11
Crl.Misc. No.3156/2024
5. Petitioner/Accused shall appear before the learned
Magistrate on the next date of hearing.

(Dictated to the Stenographer-II, transcribed and typed by him, after
corrections, pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the 8th day of April,
2024).

(NARASHIMSA.M.V.)
LX Addl. C C & S Judge,
Bengaluru.