KABC010088942024
IN THE COURT OF THE LXX ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL
AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPECIAL JUDGE,
BENGALURU(CCH-71)
Dated this the 20th day of April, 2024.
Present: Sri. Rajesh Karnam.K, B.Sc.,LL.B.,LL.M.,
LXX Additional City Civil and Sessions
Judge and Special Judge, Bengaluru.
Crl.Misc.No.3153/2024
PETITIONER/S:
SUJATHA BABU REDDY,
W/o Babu Reddy,
Aged about 49 years,
R/at No.279-A, 8th Cross,
28th Main, Ist Sector,
H.S.R.Layout,
Bengaluru-560 102.
(Rep.by Sri.K.B.K.Swamy, Advocate).
-V/S-
RESPONDENTS:
1. The State by
H.S.R.Layout Police Station,
Rep.by Public Prosecutor,
City Civil Court Complex,
Bengaluru-560 102.
2. V.Karthikeyan,
S/o.Varadarajan,
aged about 50 years,
R/at No.525, 8th cross,
30th Main, HSR Sector-I,
Bengaluru-560 102.

2
Crl.Misc.No.3153/2024
ORDER
This petition is filed by the petitioner seeking for
anticipatory bail as jurisdictional HSR.Layout police
have registered Crime No.474/2023 for the offences
punishable under sections 506, 341, 504, 323 of IPC
and Sec.3(1)(r),(s) of Scheduled Castes & Scheduled
Tribes Act 1989.
2.

The complainant lodged complaint alleging
that the petitioner and first informant hails form
same locality and the petitioner’s husband has
allegedly assaulted the first informant by holding his
neck and threatened him with dire consequences
caused bleeding injuries and spitting on his face.
3.

The grounds of the petition is that she is
innocent of alleged offence and the petitioner. The
allegations made in the earliest version are bailable
and triable by the Magistrate. The petitioner is a law
abiding citizen. The petitioner is a permanent
resident of Bengaluru. The petitioner submits that
the second respondents is an aggressor and he has
3
Crl.Misc.No.3153/2024
abused the petitioner side.

The complaint filed by
the respondent No.2 is nothing but abuse of process
of law. The petitioner has no criminal antecedents.
The petitioner has got valid and tenable defence.
The petitioner is ready and willing to abide by the
conditions imposed by this court. Hence petitioner is
forced to come up with this petition.
4.

As against the petition, the learned Special
Public Prosecutor has filed objection submitting that
the victim is belonging to schedule caste knowing
fully well who is also a neighbour to the accused has
assaulted the victim even he has been given life
threat. The Investigating Officer has taken up
investigation. There is false crime got registered by
the
accused
against
the
complainant
in
Cr.No.475/2023 as counter blast. In fact the crime is
actually registered on 25.10.2023, but till day
accused has not been arrested by the Investigating
Officer
which
itself
discloses
accused
is
very
powerful having muscle power and money power. As
such even the Writ Petition No.24253/2023 filed by
4
Crl.Misc.No.3153/2024
the accused has been dismissed which fact has not
been disclosed by the accused. Therefore the bail
petition of the petitioner cannot be entertained.
POINTS
1.

Whether the petition filed by
the petitioner made out a
ground for the reason to
considered is bail u/s.438 of
Cr.P.C.,?
2.

5.

What Order?

My answers to the above points are ;
Point No.1:
In the “Affirmative”
Point No.2: As per final order
for the following;
REASONS
6.

POINT NO.1: The learned counsel for the
petitioner submits petitioner is a woman and
considering her status and she has not made any
bleeding and she has been falsely implicated.
Another crime is also registered by the husband of
the present petitioner which is also pending before
ACMM Court. Accordingly seeks conditional bail by
5
Crl.Misc.No.3153/2024
seeking exemption as per Prathvi Raj Chauhan V/s.
Union of India (2020)4 SCC 727.

7.

The learned SPP submits bail cannot be
granted to the petitioner as petitioner has evaded
the due process of law. She has committed heinous
offences.

She
may
abscond
and
tamper
the
prosecution witnesses if she is granted conditional
bail. Accordingly petitioner is not entitled to bail.

8. This court by considering test of granting bail laid
down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in
para-23 of Gurwinder Singh V/s. State of Punjab and
Ors on examination carefully the entire crime
records in the case on hand the alleged offence
other than 506 of IPC are bailable. Secondly in what
manner the present petitioner has participated in
the crime is to be proved during the course of trial
and as per the complaint given twice entire
allegations are definitely against accused No.1.
Under such circumstances the denying of the bail of
6
Crl.Misc.No.3153/2024
the accused No.3 who is an aged woman and as the
complainant in any manner as they are neighbours
this court is satisfied to grant conditional bail.
Accordingly this court is satisfied to answer this
Point No.1 for consideration in the Affirmative.

9.

Point No.2: In view of my findings on Point
No.1, I proceed to pass the following;
ORDER
The Petition filed by the Petitioner
under Section 438 of Cr.P.C., is hereby
allowed.
Petitioner is ordered to be released on
anticipatory bail in the event of her arrest
in
Cr.No.474/2023
on
executing
her
personal bond for Rs.50,000/-, 5,000/cash surety before the court with one
surety
of
her/close
relative
on
the
following conditions;
1. The petitioner shall appear before
the IO within 10 days from the
date of receipt of this order.

7
Crl.Misc.No.3153/2024
3. The
petitioner
shall
regularly
appear before the IO as and
when
she
is
called
for
the
purpose of investigation.
4. The petitioner shall not tamper
with
prosecution
witnesses
directly or indirectly.
4. The petitioner shall not indulged
in any other offence.
If any of the above conditions violated, the IO
is at liberty to move for cancellation of bail.
(Dictated to the stenographer Grade I, transcribed her, transcription corrected,
signed and then pronounced in open court on this the 20th day of April, 2024).

(Rajesh Karnam.K)
LXX Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge
and Special Judge, Bengaluru.