KABC010078822024 IN THE COURT OF LXV ADDL CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY (CCH-66) PRESENT SHRI. HEMANTH KUMAR. C.R. B.A.L., L.L.B., LXV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, C/cLXVI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,(CCH-67) Bengaluru. Dated this the 1st day of April, 2024 Crl.Misc.No. 2815 of 2024 PETITIONER/S:- 1. Ravi Tej @ G. Ravi Teja, Aged about 26 years, S/o Shri M. Govindaiah, Residing at : No. 3225/A, 2nd Cross, Netravathi Road, Near Police Station, Kumaraswamy Layout 2nd stage, J.P.Nagar, Bengaluru-560 078.

2. M. Santhosh Aged about 22 years, s/o Ningaraj, Residing at: Vadedoddi, H. Kothnuru, Ramanagar-562117.

3. Ravi Kumar Aged about 19 years, S/o Muniyappa, Residing at : No. 269, 6th Cross, Hrushikesh Nagar, 2 Crl.Misc.No.2815/2024

Hosakerehalli, BSK 23rd Stage, Bengaluru-560 085.

4. Charan. M. Aged about Years Major, S/o Mahesh, Residing at : No. 947/A, 5th Main Road, Kalidasa Nagar, Hosakerehalli, Bengaluru -560 085.

5. Manoj. P. Aged about 19 years, S/o Prakash. L. Residing at : No. 26, 1st Main Road, Near Mookambika temple, Hosakerehalli, BSK 3rd stage, Bengaluru-560 085.

(By Sri. Dilipkumar U.T.,Advocate) V/s. RESPONDENT/S:- STATE OF KARNATAKA, By Byatarayanapura Police Station, Bangalore -560 001. (Rep. by Public Prosecutor) ORDER ON PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION 438 OF CR.P.C This petition is filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C., seeking anticipatory bail to the petitioners in Crime No.93/2024 registered by the respondent Byatarayanapura police for the offence punishable under sections 307, 504, 506, 149 of IPC. 3 Crl.Misc.No.2815/2024

2. Brief facts of the case.-

The complainant – Shashank has filed the complaint alleging that he is residing along with his family and he has studied till SSLC and that after education, he started working at Himalaya Company as Salesmen and since last six months he was not working anywhere, and the complainant has further alleged that while studying in SSLC, one Ravi Teja, a resident of Kumaraswamy Layout was a friend to him and he was in touch even after leaving SSLC and they used to meet occasionally to have drinks and cigarate near Jayanagar and Girinagar and such being the situation, about 5 years ago, the complainant and Ravi Reja had kept as mortgage of one Pulsar vehicle by investing Rs.20,000/- each and without intimating the complainant, the said Ravi Rej used to take interest of the said amount and the complainant was knowing about the same and he enquired once and the said Ravi Teja started quarreling with him he took his amount of Rs.20,000/- and while returning the same, he threatened him. The complainant has further alleged that after the return of money and quarrel between them and the same was intimated to his friends and the said Ravi Teja used to call the complainant threatening and call occasionally regarding the same and on 7/3/2024 at about 7 pm in the evening he had been to Mohan Bar and had drinks and at about 10 pm. took cigarate and he was consuming cigarate near Veerabhadra Colony in front of Eashwara Automobiles and at about 10.15 one person had come and hit to his head in a glass bottle and the said Ravi Teja came infront of him by holding a Dagger and questioned to escape from there and beaten him and the same time other 4 persons came in a bike and held him tightly and the said Ravi Teja and others have assaulted and he got admitted to hospital and alleging the said facts, complainant has lodged the present complaint. The police on receipt of the said complaint have 4 Crl.Misc.No.2815/2024 registered the case in Crime No. 93/2023 for the offences punishable under Sections 307, 504, 506, 149 of IPC.

3. The petitioners being aggrieved by the same have

preferred this bail petition on the following among other grounds. The petitioners submits that they are innocent of the alleged offences and there was financial transaction between the petitioner no.1 and the complainant, on rivalry ground, the complainant lodged false case against the petitioner and others. The petitioners submits that there is no any kind of injury on the vital parts of the body to the complainant and has further contended that the complainant was on drunken status and whether the alleged injury caused to him is due to the alleged incident or due to drunken state is subject matter of trial. The petitioners submits that there is delay in lodging the complaint and the petitioners have further contended that the offence under Section 307 of IPC are not made out. The petitioners submits that they are ready and willing to abide by the terms and conditions that may be imposed by this Court and also co-operate with the investigation. Hence, prays to allow the bail petition.

4. After service of notice, the learned Public Prosecutor has

appeared and filed objection contending that the offence alleged against the petitioners are grievous in nature and also further contended that the ingredients of the complaint prima facie shows thta the petitioners are involved in the alleged offence. The learned Public Prosecutor has also further contended that the offence alleged against the petitioners are grievous in nature, and as the investigation is still in progress at this stage if the bail petition of the accused is allowed there is every chance of of the petitioners threatening the prosecution 5 Crl.Misc.No.2815/2024 witnesses, destroying the evidence, abscond and hamper the trial. Hence, prays to reject the bail petition.

5. Heard the arguments. Now the points that arise for my

consideration.-

1. Whether the petitioners have made out sufficient ground to allow the petition filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C?

2. What order?

6. My answer to the above points are.-

Point No.1:– In the Affirmative Point No.2:– As per final order for the following

REASONS

7. Point No.1:- The petitioners counsel has addressed the

arguments contending that the petitioners are innocent of the alleged offences and due to financial transaction between the petitioner and the complainant on the ground of rivalry, the complainant has lodged the false complaint. The petitioners counsel has also addressed the argument contending that the complainant has not sustained any grievous injury and the complainant was in the drunken state as such the injury caused to the complainant is a matter of trial. The petitioners counsel has also contended that there is delay in lodging the complaint and also further contended that the investigation is still in progress and the petitioners are ready and willing to abide by the terms and conditions imposed by this court and also co-operate with the investigation. Hence prays to allow the bail petition. 6 Crl.Misc.No.2815/2024

8. The learned Public Prosecutor has addressed the

arguments contending that the offences alleged against the petitioners are under Section 307 of IPC and the same is grievous in nature and also has contended that the complaint averments prima facie shows that the petitioners are involved in the alleged offence. The learned Public Prosecutor has also contended that the investigation is still in progress and at this stage if the bail petition of the accused is allowed, there is chances of petitioners threatening the prosecution witnesses and hamper the trial. Hence, prays to reject the bail petition.

9. On perusal of the records, it is noticed that the complainant

Shashank has lodged the complaint alleging that one Ravi Teja, resident of Kumaraswamy layout was his friend and they used to meet occasionally to have drinks and cigarate near Jayanagar and Girinagar and such being the situation, about 5 years ago the complainant and Ravi Teja had kept as mortgage of one PUlsar vehicle by investing Rs.20,000/0 each and without intimating the complainant, the said Ravi Teja used to take interest of the said amount and when the complainant came to know about the same and enquired with Ravi Taja, he started quarreling with him and took his amount of Rs.20,000/-. On 7/3/2024 at about 7 pm. when the complainant had been to Mohan Bar and had drinks and at about 10 p.m. took cigarate and he was consuming cigarate near Veerabhadra colony infront of Eashwar Automobiles and at about 10.15, one person had come and hit to his head in a glass bottle and the said Ravi Teja came infront of him by holding a Dagger and beaten him and the same time other 4 persons came in a bike and held him tightly and the said Ravi Teja and others have assaulted and he got admitted to hospital and later the complainant has lodged the complaint. 7 Crl.Misc.No.2815/2024

10. On perusal of the complaint averments, it is noticed that

the offences alleged against the petitioners are under Section 307, 504, 506, 149 of IPC. The offences alleged against the petitioners are grievous in nature and also the petitioners have contended that they are ready and willing to abide by the terms and conditions imposed by this court and also to co operate with investigation, as the case is still under the stage of investigation, at this stage it cannot be said that the petitioners have involved in the alleged offence. The guilt of the petitioners has to be proved during the course of trial as the case is still under the stage of investigation, and there is every chance of threatening the prosecution witnesses and hamper the trial, the apprehension of the prosecution can be satisfied by imposing stringent conditions. Admittedly, in the present case, the case is still under the stage of investigation and the petitioners have contended that the complainant has been discharged from the hospital and the complainant is physically fit and he has given statement. The petitioners have contended that the complainant has been discharged from the hospital and as the case is still in the stage of investigation, at this stage, it cannot be said that the petitioners have committed the alleged offence. The prosecution have also not furnished any document to show that the complainant is admitted in the hospital and is taking treatment. Though the offences alleged against the petitioner are grievous in nature, the petitioners having contended that they are ready and willing to abide by the conditions that may be imposed by this court and shall co-operate with the investigation, the said apprehension of the prosecution can be satisfied by imposing stringent conditions. Admittedly, the petitioners are the resident of the address shown in the cause title. If at all during the course of trial, the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of the petitioners, they can be dealt with in accordance 8 Crl.Misc.No.2815/2024 with law. Considering all these facts, I am of the opinion that the petitioners can be enlarged on bail by imposing certain conditions, which would meet the apprehension of prosecution. Accordingly, I answer the point No.1 in the Affirmative.

11. Point No.2:- In view of the findings given on point No.1, I

proceed to pass the following.-

ORDER

The petition filed by the petitioners/ accused under Section 438 Cr.P.C., is allowed. The respondent Byatarayanapura police are directed to release the petitioners on bail in the event of their arrest in Crime No.93/2024 registered by the Byatarayanapura police for the offences punishable under Sections Sections 307, 504, 506, 149 IPC on execution of personal bond for Rs.1,00,000/- each with two sureties for the likesum subject to the following CONDITIONS:-

1. The petitioners shall appear before the court on all dates of hearing.

2. The petitioners shall appear before the IO whenever they are called upon for the purpose of investigation.

3. The petitioners shall not tamper with the evidence and shall not threaten, induce allure the prosecution witnesses in what so ever manner. 9 Crl.Misc.No.2815/2024

4. The petitioners shall not involve in any criminal activity.

5. The petitioners shall produce the permanent address proof document.

(Dictated to the Judgment writer, transcribed by her, corrected and then pronounced by me in the Open Court on this 1st day of April, 2024) (HEMANTH KUMAR. C.R) LXV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, C/c LXVI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,(CCH-67) Bengaluru.