Crl.Misc No.9981/2022 IN THE COURT OF LXIX ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH70) Present: Sri Rajesh Karnam K., B.Sc., LL.B.,LL.M., LXIX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru. Dated this the 20th day of October, 2022 Crl. Misc. No.9981/2022 PETITIONER : Satish M s/o late Mani 28 years, r/at NIL Shed, Kempegowda garden, Abbigere, Bengaluru. Also at Permanent address; Perumalpet, Vaniyambadi, Tirupattur dt. Tamil nadu. Vs RESPONDENT: State of Karnataka By Gangammagudi P.S. Bengaluru. (By Public Prosecutor) ORDER ON BAIL PETITION FILED U/SEC. 439 OF CR.P.C. This bail application is filed by the petitioner/accused seeking bail as he has been allegedly committed offence punishable u/secs. 397 of IPC in Cr. No. 79/2022 of Gangamma gudi P.S.
2. The petitioner submits that, he is innocent of the offence Crl.Misc No.9981/2022
alleged offence and he has not committed any offence, the respondentpolice have falsely implicated him in the above case. There is no motive or ill will to the petitioner to commit the alleged offence. The investigation is completed and the charge sheet is filed. The petitioner submits that he is ready and willing to abide by any conditions that would be imposed on him by this Hon'ble Court. He is permanent resident of the address stated in the cause title and they will not flee away from the jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court. Hence there is no question of absconding during the trial or otherwise and there is no criminal antecedents and have not been convicted by any court as such the petitioner is entitled to the relief of bail. With these contentions petitioner prays for grant of bail.
3. After service of notice the learned Public Prosecutor filed
objections and opposed the grant of bail and contended that the accused has committed robbery and while committing he assaulted the victim and looted the golden ornaments. His physical custody is required, if he is released on bail once again he may commit similar offence. Therefore, the bail cannot be granted.
4. Heard the arguments of both sides and perused the available materials on records.
5. The points that arise for my consideration are as under:
1. Whether petitioner is entitled for bail under Sec.439 of Cr.P.C.? Crl.Misc No.9981/2022
2. What order?
6. My finding on the above points are as follows: Point No.1: In the negative
Point No.2: As per final order for the following;
REASONS
7. On going through the material on record it depicts that the respondentpolice registered Cr. No.79/2022 against the
accused for the offence punishable u/sec. 397 of IPC. It is alleged that on 20.7.2022 one Rehana w/o Rafeeq was in her house, her two children Mohammed Ali and Mohammed Ajeez went for their job, at about 10.30 when she was in the hall the petitioner has entered the house and at the point of knife by putting something in mouth snatched golden necklace, 2 rings and he asked for alimira key and took away at knife point golden ornaments worth Rs. 6 lakhs and caused injuries to the complainant. Accordingly case is registered. The petitioner submit that he has not committed any offence, he is in JC since from the date of arrest. The petitioner submits the offences alleged are not exclusively punishable with with death or imprisonment for life, the petitioner hails from respectable family and bread earner, as such may be released on bail on any of the conditions. `8. On perusal of the compliant it is found that the Byatarayanapura Police registered Crime No.79/2022 against the Crl.Misc No.9981/2022 accused/petitioner. It is alleged in the complaint that the accused assaulted the complainant and looted the jewels. Hence he lodged complaint. On these allegation respondent police registered crime. After that the Respondent Police investigated the matter and arrested the accused. On going through the material on record victim also suffered injuries as assault being made by the petitioner and it has been shellshocked. The investigation has led to the recovery of the materials which are even specifically identified by the witnesses. As such bail should not be granted.
9. On going through the material on record it is submitted the investigation is completed and the charge sheet is filed,
under the changed circumstances the bail may be granted to the petitioner. It is pertinent to note that accused is the resident of Vaniyambadi, Tirupattur dt. Tamil nadu, as he is stranger to the Bangalore city, he has been picked up and fixed in this case, accordingly bail is to be granted. However the CD produced does not obliges this court to grant bail. The allegations made against the accused are serious and he had assaulted the victim, therefore there are no grounds made out to grant bail to the accused. Though the investigation is completed and the charge sheet is filed, there are clinching primafacie materials not to consider the bail application of the accused. Hence the petitioner do not deserves for grant of regular bail. Accordingly this point is answered accordingly. Crl.Misc No.9981/2022
10. Point No.2: By considering the above over all reasons
this court proceed to pass the following;
ORDER
Bail petition filed under Sec. 439 of Cr.P.C. by the Petitioner is hereby rejected. (Dictated to the JW, transcript thereof is corrected, signed and pronounced by me in open court on this the 20th day of October, 2022) Digitally signed by KESHAVRAO RAJESH KARNAM KESHAVRAO DN:KARNAM,ou=PRINCIPLEcn=KESHAVRAO RAJESHJUDGE RAJESH KARNAM FAMILYOF TREASURIES,st=Karnataka,c=INCOURT BALLARI,o=DIRECTOR (Rajesh Karnam.K.)Date: 2022.10.27 16:18:52 IST 69th Addl.C.C. & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.