IN THE COURT OF THE LIX ADDL.CITY CIVIL &
SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE CITY (CCH-60)
Dated this the 23rd day of June 2022
PRESENT
Sri.SADANANDA NAGAPPA NAIK,B.A.L, L.L.B,
LIX ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, CCH-60
BENGALURU CITY.
CRL. MISC.No.5970/2022
PETITIONER
:
Thuphel @ Chota Nagesh
S/o Noorulla,
Aged about 20 years,
R/at Near Comando Hospital,
Bengaluru.
(Accused No.1 is in J.C)
(By Sri. Shaik Ali, Advocate)
-Vs-
RESPONDENT
:
State of Karnataka
By HAL Police Station.
(Rep. By Public Prosecutor
City Civil Court, Bengaluru)
ORDERS ON PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION 439
OF CR.P.C.
The Petitioner/Accused No.1 has filed this Petition
under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. praying the court to enlarge
2
Crl.Misc.No.5970/2022
him on bail in Cr.No.834/2014 in (C.C. No. 50491/2015) In
S.C. No. 206/2015 for alleged offences U/Sec. 435, 436, 438
R/w 34 of IPC, registered by the respondent police,
Bengaluru.
2.

The petitioner in the petition has contended that,
he is absolutely innocent of the alleged offences and have
got valid and good tenable defense.

He has been falsely
implicated in the above case and no point of time the
petitioner have involved in the alleged crime either directly
or indirectly.

There is no any ulterior motive or no any
previous grudge between the complainant and the present
petitioner and he was suffering from kidney stone and
undergone surgery.

On reading the entire case records,
there is no specific mention of the overt-act attributed by
the present petitioner. The alleged offences are not
exclusively punishable either with death or imprisonment
for life and the petitioner hails from a Respectable family
and having deep roots in the society.

The petitioner is
permanent resident of the above said address.

The
petitioner is ready and willing to abide by any terms and
conditions that may be imposed by this court and furnish
surety to the satisfaction of the court. Thus, prayed to allow
the petition.

3
3.

Crl.Misc.No.5970/2022
The learned Public Prosecutor has filed his
detailed
objections
opposing
the
petition
on
various
grounds. It is stated that there are sufficient materials to
show that the petitioner is involved in the crime. If he is
released on bail, he may abscond and also tamper the
prosecution witnesses.

He was not diligent in attend the
court and absconded many times. Hence, prayed to reject
the petition.

4.

I have heard
the
learned
counsel
for the
petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor and perused the
materials on record.

5. The points that would arise for my consideration are
as under:
1) Whether the petitioner is entitled for bail
under Section 439 of Cr.P.C.?
2) What order?

6.

My findings on the above points are as under:
Point No. 1
:
In the Negative,
Point No. 2
:
As per final order,
for the following:
4
Crl.Misc.No.5970/2022
REASONS
7.

POINT NO.1: The case of the prosecution is
that, on 07/08.11.2014 night at about 1.00 am they had
parked vehicle bearing No. KA-03-EU-7519 belonging to
complainant, KA-03-EJ-866 belonging to Surya Prakash,
AP-21-H-4274
belonging
to
Bhargav,
TN-20-M-9934
belonging to N. Rajesh, KA-03-HP—8011
Dhanashhekar,
AA-03-HT—1076
belonging to
belonging
to
Binny
Joseph, QR-02-AA-5388 belonging to Styajit, KA-03-HL5996 belonging to Sebasaji, KA-01-Y-4657 belonging to
Pavan Kumar, KA-03-HB-1996 belonging to Sajan. N and
KA-53-K-6483 belonging to Vijay Sharma.

The above
said vehicles were burnt to by some unknown persons.
Based on the complaint of R. Subramani, FIR came to
registered in Crime No. 834/2014.

Thereafter, charge
sheet came to be in C.C. No. 50491/2015. Thereafter,
case was committed to this court in SC No. 206/2015.
After committal of the case, the petitioner has obtained
a bail.

Thereafter, as the accused had absconded,
proclamation was issued and he was produced under
warrant and remanded to custody.

Now the petitioner
has come up with present petition for grant of bail urging
several grounds.
8.

The
counsel
for
petitioner
has
argued
that,
petitioner is innocent and that he has been falsely
5
Crl.Misc.No.5970/2022
implicated in the crime. It is stated that he is in judicial
custody and he is no more required for interrogation. There
is no material to establish the involvement in the crime. He
is permanent resident of the address mentioned in the
petition and that he would abide by the conditions that
may be imposed by the Court, if he is released on bail.
Thus, prayed to allow the petition.
9. Per contra, the learned Public Prosecutor has argued
that, there are sufficient materials to show that the
petitioner is involved in the crime. He was not diligent in
attending the court. He had absconded several times. If
he is released on bail, he may abscond again and tamper
with prosecution witnesses. Hence, prayed to reject the
petition.
10. Considering the present bail petition, the Court is
normally required to consider the following aspects:
i) The nature and seriousness of the accusation;
ii) Severity of the offence ;
iii)Nature of the evidence collected and the character and
behaviour of the accused ;
iv) Chances of the accused absconding and not being
available during the trial ;
v) Possibility of repetition of such crime ;
6
Crl.Misc.No.5970/2022
vi)Chances of the accused of tampering with the evidence
and witnesses and
vii) Larger interest of the people and the State.
11. On perusal of entire material on record, it shows
that, the offences alleged against the petitioner are serious
in nature. The records furnished by the petitioner discloses
that, the case is pending in S.C. No. 206/2015 and the
present accused was granted on 24.07.2017, thereafter he
remained absent. On many hearing dates and the court has
issued a proclamation against the petitioner several times.
The matter in S.C. No. 206/2015 has not progressed till date
due to the absence of petitioner.

If the petitioner is
released on bail, the same will hamper the progress of the
case. Further, if the petitioner is released on bail he may
give threat to the complainant and he may commit similar
offence cannot be ruled out at this stage.

Therefore, the
petitioner is not entitled for bail. Accordingly, I answer the
above point in the Negative and proceed to pass the
following:
12.

POINT NO.2: In view of my findings on above
said points, the petition is liable to be rejected. Hence, in
the result, I proceed to pass the following:
7
Crl.Misc.No.5970/2022
ORDER
The Petition filed by the petitioner/accused
No.1 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. is rejected.
(Dictated to Stenographer directly on computer, typed by her, thereafter
corrected and then pronounced by me, in the open Court, on this the 23rd day
of June, 2022).

(SADANANDA NAGAPPA NAIK)
LIX Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge
CCH-60, Bengaluru.