Crl. Misc. No.2917/2024 KABC010081992024 IN THE COURT OF THE LXI ADDL. CITY CIVIL, SESSIONS JUDGE: BENGALURU CITY Dated this the 08 th day of April, 2024 -: PRESENT :- -: PRESENT :- SMT.NISHARANI A.C., B.A., LL.B., III ACC & SJ, Bengaluru C/C LXI ACC & SJ Bangalore, (CCH-62) CRL. MISC. No.2917/2024 Petitioner/s : 1 Shivakumar @ Sri Manjunath S/o.Shiva Reddy Aged 27 years C/o.Gadigeyavara House Valmiki Circle Gangavathi Town Koppal District. (Accused in JC) (By Sri.Chandrashekar C Chanaspur, Adv.) V/s Respondent : State by Yelahanka P.S., Bengaluru City Rep. by Public Prosecutor, City Civil Court Complex, Bengaluru. Crl. Misc. No.2917/2024 ORDERS ON BAIL APPLICATION ONE FILED BY THE PETITIONER UNDER SECTION 439 OF Cr.P.C. This criminal Mis. Petition is filed by the petitioner under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., seeking the relief of regular bail in relation to the case bearing NoCC No.2601/2024 (Cr. No.488/2023), which is registered by the Yelahanka Police Station, Bengaluru alleging that petitioner has committed the offences punishable under Section 323, 328, 351 of IPC.

2. The petitioner contents that he is innocent of the

alleged offences and he is not habitual offender and he is resident of the address as shown in the cause title of the petition & residing along with the parents and has got strong roots in the society and as such there is no chance of him absconding or fleeing away from justice & he is the only earning member in his family and the alleged offence are not punishable with death or imprisonment for life and the respondent police have filed charge sheet and as such his presence is judicial custody is not warranted and he is a law abiding citizen and he is ready and willing to abide by the terms and conditions that may be imposed by the court for his release on bail and he is also ready to offer surety to the satisfaction of the Court for his release on bail hence he is entitled for bail. Crl. Misc. No.2917/2024

3. On the other hand the learned Public Prosecutor has

filed his objections & opposed the above application that the grounds urged for seeking bail are not satisfactory & charge sheet one placed on record prima-facie discloses the involvement of the petitioner in commission of the alleged heinous offence punishable under Section 328 of IPC & now at this stage if the petitioner is granted bail then he may abscond, tamper the prosecution witnesses & accordingly prayed for rejection of the bail petition.

4. In view of the above said facts and circumstances,

the points that arise for my consideration are as follows; 1) Whether the bail petition filed by the petitioner under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., deserves to be allowed? 2) To what Order?

5. I have carefully perused the entire materials

available on record and heard the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent.

6. Now, my findings on the above points are as follows:-

Point No.1 – In negative Crl. Misc. No.2917/2024 Point No.2 – As per final Order, for the following; R E A S O N S

7. Point No.1:- On perusal of the FIR, complaint &

charge sheet it is alleged that on 05.11.2023 at about 10.00 p.m., when the complainant's wife Jnaneshwari was going home by closing the medical store near Byatarayanapura near Judicial layout Park road then at that time the accused due to old grudge had stopped the complainant's wife & with an intention to kill her has kept a knife on her neck and then compelled her to swallow sleeping tablets by assaulting her on her lips and mouth & as a result of it she fell unconscious and there by committed the offences punishable under Section 323, 328, 341 of IPC.

8. Now, it is the contention of the petitioner that he is

innocent of the offences alleged and he has been falsely implicated in the instant case & he has never committed any offences as alleged & he is ready and willing to abide by the conditions that may be imposed by the court for his release on bail.

9. On the other hand though the prosecution has

opposed the case of the petitioner, the same holds water as the materials placed on record prima-facie shows the Crl. Misc. No.2917/2024 involvement of the petitioner in commission of the alleged heinous offences of administering stupefying drug with intend to cause hurt punishable under Section 328 of IPC.

10. I am aware that this Court cannot and is not

supposed to sift the evidence made available by the prosecution at the time of deciding the bail petition. However, only for the purpose of deciding that whether the petitioner is entitled for anticipatory bail or not, I discuss the facts alleged by the prosecution and whatever I say, while disposing of this bail petition, cannot be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the of the main case.

11. The materials placed on record including the charge

sheet discloses the involvement of the petitioner in commission of the alleged heinous offence of of administering stupefying drug with intend to cause hurt punishable under Section 328 of IPC & since there is possibility of threatening the complainant and tampering the prosecution witnesses by the above petitioner and since it is necessary to consider the interest of the society while granting bail & since in the rulings of ILR 2016 KAR 1516 & 2010 SCC 496 it has been clearly held that 'While considering the bail application in the heinous offences, the court has to consider the prima-facie materials and reasonable grounds and also Crl. Misc. No.2917/2024 of the severity of the punishment' & since the earlier two bail applications of the above petitioner filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., has been dismissed by this Court i.e., in Crl. Misc. No.11041/2023 on 23.11.2023 & Crl. Misc. No.12321/2023 on 06.01.2024 & since the petitioner has not at all made out any fresh cogent grounds for grant of bail except filing of the charge sheet & since in a ruling of AIR 2017 SC 1685 i.e., in the case of Virupaksha Gowda V/s. State of Karnataka, it has been clearly held that 'Filing of the charge sheet does not in any manner lessen the allegations made by the prosecution. On the contrary filing of the charge sheet establishes that after due investigation the investigating agency having found the materials has placed the charge sheet for trial of the accused and hence it substantiates prima-facie case against the accused' then I am of the considered opinion that the petitioner has not at all made out any fresh cogent grounds to grant the bail and accordingly, I have answered the above point No.1 in negative.

12. Point No.2 :- In view of the discussion made on

point No.1 and further holding it in the Negative, I proceed to pass the following:- Crl. Misc. No.2917/2024 O R D E R The bail petition filed by the petitioner u/s 439 of Cr.P.C., is hereby rejected. (Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and typed by her, corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 08th day of April, 2024). (NISHARANI A.C) C/C LXI ACC & SJ, B’luru Crl. Misc. No.2917/2024 08.04.2024 P-CCC R-PP

Order

Order pronounced in open Court (vide separate order) with the following operative portion:- O R D E R The bail petition filed by the petitioner u/s 439 of Cr.P.C., is hereby rejected. (NISHARANI A.C) C/C LXI ACC & SJ, B’luru Crl. Misc. No.2917/2024