1
Crl.Misc.No.6060/2022
KABC010127152022
IN THE COURT OF LV ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS
JUDGE, BENGALURU (CCC-56)
: Present :
Sri. SHRIRAM NARAYAN HEGDE,
B.A., LL.M.,
LV Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru.
DATED: THIS THE 22nd DAY OF JUNE 2022
Crl.Misc. No.6060/2022
PETITIONER
::
SYED IMRAN @ TABLET IMRAN
S/o syed Khadar,
Aged about 25 years,
Residing at No.-,7th Cross,
Venkateshapuram,
Kadugondanahalli,
Bengaluru.
(Rep. by Sri.Darshan Kumar,Adv.)
Vs.

RESPONDENT
::
The State of Karnataka –
By Yelahanka Police Station,
Bengaluru.
(Rep. by Public Prosecutor)
ORDER
2
Crl.Misc.No.6060/2022
The petitioner / accused No.2 has prayed this court for
grant of bail under section 439 of Cr.P.C.
2.

In the complaint filed by one Sri.Vijeesh K. S/o Thami,
a case is registered in Cr.No.93/2022 by Yelahanka PS for
the alleged offence punishable under Sections 341, 427,
504, 506, 397 of IPC.
3.

It is alleged in the complaint that on 09.04.2022 at
about 2-30 p.m. the complainant and his driver were
proceeding in their Toyota Fortuner Car bearing No.
KL-52/G-5005 on Bagalur cross road, in front of REVA
college. At that time, two persons in a two wheeler doing
Zig-Zag on the left side of the car. The driver of the car
blown horn as such they came on right side of the car and
started
abusing
the
complainant
and
his
driver.

Apprehending the danger, the driver took ‘U’ turn and once
again the accused overtook the car and came in front of the
car an made them to halt. One of the riders came near the
car and removed his knife and damaged the left side of the
windscreen and another accused came with knife and
attempted to nab the mobile phone
of the complainant.

3
Crl.Misc.No.6060/2022
When
the
complainant
resisted
he
nabbed
cash
of
Rs.5,000/- from the pocket of the complainant and went
away.

That accused caused bleeding injury to the
complainant. Then the complainant filed a complaint and
the police have registered a case in the aforesaid crime
number.

4.

Now the learned counsel for the petitioner / accused
No.2 in the bail application contended that this petitioner
has not committed any offence and he is innocent person.
REVA college area is a busy locality and hence, it is not
possible to commit aforesaid offence. In the complaint the
name of this accused is not mentioned.

This accused is
falsely implicated in this case. He is permanent resident of
the address mentioned in the remand application and as
such there is no chance of absconding. Nothing is recovered
from the possession of this accused. The police have not
ascertained CCTV footage to ensure the incident and the
accused. The alleged offences are not punishable with
death or imprisonment for life. This petitioner is ready and
4
Crl.Misc.No.6060/2022
willing to abide by the terms and conditions that may
imposed by this court. Hence, prayed to allow the petition.

5.

Learned
Public
application by filing
Prosecutor
has
contested
this
detailed objections by narrating the
incident and contended that
this petitioner is habitual
offender. The complainant has recorded the incident in his
mobile phone. The weapon used to commit crime and also
amount is seized from the possession of the accused. There
is prima-facie case against the accused. Since this accused
is habitual offender he will commit the same offences, if he
is enlarged on bail. This is a second successive bail petition
filed
by
the
petitioner
and
there
is
no
changed
circumstances. Hence, prayed to reject the bail application.

6.

Along with objections the report of the investigating
officer
is also submitted. According to the investigating
officer this petitioner is habitual offender. Against him
around 8 cases are pending before the different police
stations for the offence of robbery, theft and extortion.

5
Crl.Misc.No.6060/2022
7.

Heard arguments and perused the records.

8.

Now the point for consideration is as follows.
“Whether the petitioner / accused No.2 has made out
sufficient grounds to grant bail by resorting to special
powers vested in this Court under Section 439 of
Cr.P.C.?”
9.

On the basis of the materials available on record my
finding to the above point is in the NEGATIVE for the
following.
REASONS
10. I have gone through the entire materials available on
record.

The complaint averments disclose that Yelahanka
police have registered Cr.No.93/2022 against this petitioner
and others for the offence punishable under Section 427,
506, 504, 341, 397 of IPC.
11. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the
petitioner that this petitioner is a innocent person and he
has not committed any offence and nothing is recovered
from his possession. The offences are not punishable with
death or imprisonment for life. The petitioner is ready to
furnish surety and to abide by the conditions that may
6
Crl.Misc.No.6060/2022
imposed by this court.

12. It is settled position of law that at the time of
considering the bail petitioner the court need not conduct a
mini trial and consider the merits of the case.

The court
has only to see prima-facie involvement of the accused /
petitioner in the alleged crime.
13. The police report reveals that the following cases are
pending against this petitioner.
1.

Cr.No.251/2019 of Soladevanahalli PS for the
offence punishable under Section 397 of IPC.
2.
Cr.No.164/2011 of Kadugondanahalli PS for the
offence punishable under Section 395 of IPC.
3.
Cr.No.396/2020 of Kadugondanahalli PS for the
offence punishable under Section 399, 402 of
IPC.
4.
Cr.No.156/2021 of Sampigehalli PS for the
offence punishable under Section 384 of IPC.
5.
Cr.No.147/2021 of Sampigehalli PS for the
offence punishable under Section 454, 380, 511
of IPC.
6.
Cr.No.234/2021 of Sampigehalli PS for the
offence punishable under Section 457, 380 of
IPC.
7.
Cr.No.264/2021 of Sampigehalli PS for the
offence punishable under Section 384 of IPC.
8.
Cr.No.256/2021 of Yelahanka PS for the
offence punishable under Section 394 of IPC.
14. On going through the police report, prima-facie it
reveals that this petitioner is a habitual offender.

If the
7
Crl.Misc.No.6060/2022
alleged
offences
in
this
case
is
proved,
minimum
punishment to be imposed to this petitioner is 7 years. On
going through the police report further it reveals that if this
petitioner
is
enlarged on bail he
may tamper
with
prosecution witnesses or he may abscond and he may
commit similar offences. This is a second successive bail
petition filed by the petitioner within a short span of time of
25 days. The earlier bail petition in Crl.Misc.No.4618/2022
was already rejected by an order dated 27.05.2022. There
is no changed circumstances. Such being the case in my
opinion it is not a fit case to enlarge the accused on bail.
For these reasons, the above point is answered in the
NEGATIVE and proceed to pass the following.
ORDER
Bail petition filed by the petitioner / accused No.2
under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. is hereby rejected.
(Dictated to the Judgment Writer, transcribed by him and
corrected by me and then pronounced in the open court on
this the 22nd day of JUNE 2022.)
(SHRIRAM NARAYAN HEGDE),
LV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru. (CCH-56)
8
Crl.Misc.No.6060/2022
Order passed and pronounced in the
open court (vide separate order). The
operative portion of the order reads
thus:
ORDER
Bail petition filed by the
petitioner / accused No.2 under
Section 439 of Cr.P.C. is hereby
rejected.
LV ACC&SJ, Bangalore (CCH-56)