Crl.Misc.No.2950/2024 KABC010083372024 IN THE COURT OF THE XXVII ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH 9) AND HOLDING CONCURRENT CHARGE OF LXIX ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH 70) BANGALORE CITY Dated this the 4th day of April, 2024 PRESENT Sri. Hareesha A., B.A.,LL.B, XXVII Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge (CCH 9) and also holding concurrent charge of the court of 69th Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge (CCH 70). Crl.Misc.No.2950/2024 Petitioner : Sri Mujamilpasha @ Muju s/o Amzadpasha, r/o No. 185, III cross, Kogilu layout, Yelahanka, Bengaluru. (By Sri. S.R.Raghavendra, Advocate) ­V/S­ Respondent : State of Karnataka by Amruthahalli PS, B`lore (Represented by Public Crl.Misc.No.2950/2024 Prosecutor) ORDER ON BAIL PETITION FILED U/SEC. 439 OF CR.P.C. The petitioner has filed this petition under Sec. 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) for his release on bail in Crime No. 64/2024 registered by the respondent police for the offences punishable u/sec. 364 (A), 324, 506(b) r/w 34 of Indian Panel Code. The present petitioner is shown as accused No.1 in the remand application.

2. The petitioner asserting false implication among other

grounds, and pledging adherence to any conditions that may be imposed by this court upon release, sought for his release on bail.

3. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor in their

objection, contends that, there exists prima­facie material on record, sufficient to engender a reasonable belief in the petitioner`s commission of alleged offence. The weapons used for the offence were seized at the instance of accused persons. For the reasons, the prosecution sought for dismissal of the Crl.Misc.No.2950/2024 petition.

4. I have heard the argument and perused the material

placed by the petitioner alongwith petition. The point that would arise for my determination is:

1. Whether the petitioner/accused No.1 has made out any grounds to enlarge him on bail u/sec. 439 of Cr.P.C.?

2. What order?

5. My answer is in the Affirmative for the following;

REASONS

6. POINT NO.1; On 6.3.2024 at about 6.00 am, the

respondent police received a complaint from one Masoom, son of Moharaj, r/o Dasarahally, Bengaluru. In the complaint, it is alleged that around 12:30 am on the same day, three unknown persons arrived at his residence, identifying themselves as crime police from Amruthahally police station. They purportedly took him under the guise of investigation related to a criminal matter to an undisclosed location, where they demanded a ransom of Rs. 5 lakhs for his release. Additionally, the complainant asserted that he was informed of a contract Crl.Misc.No.2950/2024 worth Rs. 2 lakhs to end his life. Allegedly, the accused persons assaulted him with a beer bottle and a sword, resulting in injuries to his head. During the incident, police patrolling in the vicinity approached their vehicle, prompting the complainant to call out for assistance. Responding to his distress, the police intervened, leading to the rescue of complainant and the apprehension of the accused persons. Consequently, an FIR was registered in Cr. No. 64/2024, charging the accused with offenses punishable under Section 324, 364A, 506(b) read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently

contended that the present case stems from a false complaint lodged by the complainant. It is asserted that this complaint arose due to demands made by the accused persons for the repayment of a loan extended to the complainant. Further, the counsel contends that the entirety of the prosecution's case is shrouded in doubt. Despite the complaint alleging the apprehension of the accused individuals at the scene, the FIR was registered against unnamed persons. Consequently, the Crl.Misc.No.2950/2024 learned counsel for the petitioner sought for the release of petitioner on bail, subject to imposing stringent conditions. He has also contended that accused No.2 and 3 are released on bail by this court.

8. Having perused the material placed by both the

learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor, I find that according to the prosecution's case, the accused persons were apprehended by the police while the complainant was allegedly in their custody. The police have seized a sword, a beer bottle, and a Swift Car, which was allegedly used in the alleged kidnapping of the complainant to assault him. It is noteworthy that, as rightly argued by the counsel for the petitioner, the complaint indicates that the police apprehended the accused persons at the scene. However, it is puzzling to observe that the FIR was registered against three unknown persons.

9. Additionally, it is worth to note that, as per the

prosecution's version, the accused persons have assaulted the complainant with a sword and a beer bottle, causing injuries to Crl.Misc.No.2950/2024 his head, right shoulder, and abdomen. Yet, it is surprising that the police allegedly seized an empty, unbroken beer bottle from the possession of the accused persons. It stands to reason that if the complainant had indeed been assaulted with a beer bottle, there would likely be visible injuries and the bottle would likely be broken. However, the prosecution has not provided any evidence to demonstrate that the complainant sustained such injuries as alleged in the complaint. Given the facts and circumstances of the case, as well as the material placed by the prosecution, I am of the considered opinion that there is no reason to continue the detention of petitioner in judicial custody. In the absence of prima facie evidence to suggest that the accused persons committed the alleged offense, he is entitled to bail. Further more the accused No.2 and 3 are enlarged on bail by this court. So, the ground of parity may be applied to this petitioner. To address the prosecution's concerns regarding threatening the prosecution witnesses and the potential flight risk, stringent conditions can be imposed as a measure to mitigate such apprehensions. Accordingly the Point Crl.Misc.No.2950/2024 No.1 is answered in the Affirmative.

10. Point No.2: By considering the above over all reasons this court proceed to pass the following;

ORDER

The bail application filed by the petitioner/ accused No.1 u/sec. 439 of Cr.P.C. is hereby allowed. The petitioner / accused No.1 shall be released on regular bail in Cr. No. 64/2024 registered by the respondent police station for the offence punishable u/sec. 364 (A), 324, 506(b) r/w 34 of IPC, pending on the board of 7th ACMM, on executing personal bond for Rs.1,00,000/­ with one surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate, subject to the following conditions.

1. The petitioner shall not threaten or tamper with the Prosecution witnesses directly or indirectly.

2. The petitioner shall not commit similar offence.

3. The petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the court without prior permission.

4. The petitioner shall furnish documents for his Crl.Misc.No.2950/2024

residential proof.

5. The petitioner shall appear before the I.O and trial court regularly as and when summoned.

In case of violation of any conditions, the prosecution is at liberty to move for cancellation of bail. (Dictated to the Stenographer Grade ­ I, transcript thereof is corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in open court on this the 4th day of April, 2024) (Hareesha A.) XXVII Addl. CC & SJ holding c/c of 69th Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge,Bangalore.