Crl.Misc.2983/2024 KABC010084542024 IN THE COURT OF THE LXVIII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY (CCH-69) Dated this the 15th day of May 2024 :PRESENT: Sri.Sabappa,B.Com.,LLB(Spl.) LXVIIIAddl.CityCivilandSessionsJudge, Bengaluru City. CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.2983/2024 PETITIONER : Varuna. S, S/o Shantha Raj. B, Aged about 26 years, R/at No.227/3, 11th Main, Pipeline, Kalappa Block, Srinagar, Banashankari, Bengaluru – 560 050. (BySri. Lokesha.M.S, Adv.,) V/s RESPONDENT : State by; Hanumanthanagar Police Station, Bengaluru. (RepresentedbyPublicProsecutor) Crl.Misc.2983/2024 ORDER ON BAIL PETITION U/SEC.438 OF CR.P.C. This petition is filed by the petitioner under Sec.438 of Cr.P.C., seeking anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest in connection with Cr.No.306/2023 (C.C.No.7456/2024) registered by Hanumanthanagar Police, for the offences punishable under Secs.307, 504 r/w 34 of I.P.C.

2. The brief facts of the petitioner case is that, the

respondent police have registered case against the petitioner and others in Cr.No.306/2023 for the offences punishable Secs.307, 504 r/w 34 of I.P.C based on the complaint filed by one Sharath. It is alleged that, the complainant and his brother are running cloth shop in the name and style “Urban Style” at Hanumanthanagar. On 01.12.2023 at about 8.30 p.m 3 unknown persons came in a Access and Dio Scooter near the complainant's shop and were honking loudly. Then the complainant came out of his shop and talked with them. At that time, the said persons asked where in Hemanth, for which the complainant said he does not know who is Hemanth. Then the said persons asked the complainant where is his younger brother. Then complainant told that he has no younger brother and he has only elder brother and said persons asked him to call his brother. Then complainant called his brother and gave the phone to them. Thereafter, they abused the complainant and asked him to give new clothes. But complainant refused to give them new clothes. The said persons told the complainant that they are Crl.Misc.2983/2024 rowdies the said area and they slapped the complainant. Thereafter, they attempted to assault the complainant by long, but complainant escaped from the said blow. Later when the public gathered there, the said persons escaped from the said place. Hence, the complaint. Now the respondent police are making hectic efforts to arrest the petitioner. Thereby, the petitioner is apprehending his arrest by the respondent police. Thereby, the petitioner has approached this court seeking anticipatory bail.

3. The grounds urged by the petitioner are as under.

The petitioner submitted that, he is innocent of the alleged offences. The alleged incident has taken place on 01.12.2023. But the complaint is lodged on 02.12.2023. There is inordinate delay in lodging the complaint. The case is registered against unknown persons, wherein the name of the petitioner is not found in either in the FIR or in the complaint. He has been falsely implicated as accused No.1. No such incident as alleged by the complainant is taken place. The petitioner was arrested in another case in Cr.No.330/2023 of Hanumanthanagar Police Station and put body warrant in the above case. In the meanwhile the body warrant was recalled and he was released on bail in said Cr.No.330/2023. In the above case accused Nos.2 and 3 are already granted bail in Crl.Misc.12089/2023 vide order dated 28.12.2023. Hence, this petitioner is also entitled for bail on the ground of parity. The injured has not suffered any vital injuries and he is not admitted to the hospital. The respondent police have already completed the Crl.Misc.2983/2024 investigation and submitted the charge sheet. Hence, custodial interrogation of the petitioner is no more required for further investigation purpose. The petitioner never involved in the alleged offences. The alleged offences are not punishable with death or imprisonment for life. He is the only earning member of his family. He hails from respectable family. There are no materials on record to show that the petitioner is guilty of the alleged offences. He is ready and willing to abide by any conditions imposed by this Court. He is ready and willing to offer surety to the satisfaction of this Court. Hence, they prayed to allow the petition.

4. The learned Public Prosecutor has filed objections to

the bail petition contending that, the grounds stated by the petitioner are far away from truth. In the objections the learned Public Prosecutor has narrated the facts as stated in the charge sheet. During the course of investigation the I.O has visited the spot and conducted spot mahazar. The I.O has seized the vehicles and long which are used for commission of the offence. Petitioner/accused No.1 is absconding. He is a rowdy sheeter. Several cases are registered against him in Hanumanthanagar Police Station. The petitioner colluded with other accused persons and committed the alleged offences. The Deputy Commissioner of Police, Bangalore has passed order, by banishing(ಗಡಪರ) the petitioner from Bangalore. The petitioner has violated the said order. The offence U/Sec.307 of IPC is punishable with imprisonment for life or imprisonment for 10 years and fine. The Crl.Misc.2983/2024 petitioner is involved in the alleged offences. If the petitioner is granted bail, there is every chance that he may abscond, tamper the prosecution witnesses and hamper the evidence. Therefore, the P.P has sought for rejection of bail.

5. Heard both sides. Perused the materials on record.

6. The points that arise for my consideration are:

1. Whether the petitioner has made out sufficient grounds for grant of anticipatory bail U/Sec.438 of Cr.P.C as sought for?

2. What order?

7. My findings to the above points are as follows:

Point No.1 : In the Affirmative, Point No.2 : As per final order, for the following; R E A S O N S

8. POINT No.1: I have gone through the bail petition and

objection statement. It is noticed that the respondent police have registered case against the petitioner in Cr.No.306/2023 for the offences punishable U/Secs.307, 504 r/w 34 of I.P.C. The petitioner contended that, he was arrested in Cr.No.330/2023 of Hanumanthanagar Police Station and body warrant was issued against him. In the meanwhile body warrant was recalled and he was released on bail in the said Cr.No.330/2023. He is ready and willing to abide by any conditions imposed by this Court. He is Crl.Misc.2983/2024 ready and willing to offer surety to the satisfaction of this Court. The alleged offences are not punishable with death or imprisonment for life. Hence, they prayed to allow the petition.

9. On the other hand, the prosecution contended that, the

petitioner is involved in the commission of the alleged offences. The petitioner/accused No.1 is absconding. Several cases are registered against accused No.1 in different Police Stations. He is a rowdy sheeter. If the petitioner is granted bail, there is every chance that he may abscond, tamper the prosecution witnesses and hamper the evidence. Therefore, the P.P has sought for rejection of bail.

10. On perusal of the FIR it is noticed that one Sharath has

lodged the complaint against 3 unknown persons. Petitioner is arrested in Cr.No.330/2023 and interrogated by the police. Later on, he is enlarged on bail. The respondent police have already submitted the charge sheet. It is alleged that the petitioner has assaulted the complainant by hands. The trial court has also passed order on the application filed by one Nagesh.K U/Sec.451 and 457 of Cr.P.C for release of the vehicle. The said application is allowed by the trial court. On going through the records, it reveals that already the present petitioner is enlarged on bail in another case. The prosecution contended that, the present petitioner being the absconding accused in this case. He is a rowdy sheeter. He is involved in so many cases. The Deputy Commissioner of Police, Crl.Misc.2983/2024 Bangalore has passed order, by banishing(ಗಡಪರ) the petitioner from Bangalore. Even then the petitioner came to Bangalore and committed the alleged offences. This goes to show that, the petitioner is a habitual offender. In case, he is enlarged on bail he will commit similar offences.

11. In view of the submissions of both the sides, on perusal

of the records it is no doubt, the petitioner is involved in some other cases. On that ground it is not proper to reject the bail. Moreover, co-accused are already enlarged on bail as per the orders passed by this Court in Crl.Misc.12098/2023.

12. The learned counsel for the petitioner has furnished

memo along with one citation reported in W.P.No.9727/2024, Sachin .M.R V/s State of Karnataka and Others. The Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka passed the order on the Writ Petition. It is observed that, “The Writ Petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 20.03.2023 in MYSAC/MAG/MAG/43/2024 E384634 passed by the second respondent is hereby quashed. Liberty is reserved to the State to take action in accordance with law, in the event it becomes necessary in law and if it becomes necessary action shall be taken, bearing in mind the observations made in the course of the order.” One Sachin has challenged the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner and Sub-Divisional Magistrate. In the said case, the Hon'ble High Court has discussed in detail and observed that the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner and Crl.Misc.2983/2024 Sub-Divisional Magistrate is not in accordance with law. Here in this case also, the prosecution contended that, Deputy Commissioner of Police has passed the order against this petitioner.

13. In over all considering the materials placed by the

petitioner as well as the circumstances it reveals that, at the relevant point of time the respondent police had not submitted the final report. Thereby, this Court has rejected the bail petition filed by the petitioner. Now, the respondent police have already completed the investigation and submitted the final report. Thereby, the petitioner is not required for further interrogation by the respondent police. Moreover, co-accused are already enlarged on bail by this Court. The petitioner is also standing on the same footing. Thereby, the petitioner is also entitled for bail on the ground of parity. It is further noticed that, bail is a rule, jail is exception. At this stage, this Court feels that, if some stringent conditions imposed on the petitioner and released him on bail, it will protect the interest of the prosecution. Otherwise, the petitioner will be put to irreparable loss and injury. Hence, for the above reasons and discussion, I answer Point No.1 in the Affirmative.

14. POINT NO.2: In view of my findings point No.1, I

proceed to pass the following: Crl.Misc.2983/2024 O R D E R Bail petition filed by the petitioner under Sec.438 of Cr.P.C is hereby allowed. Petitioner is ordered to be released on anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest in connection with Cr.No.306/2023 (C.C.No.7456/2024) on executing his personal bond for Rs.50,000/- with one surety for the likesum on the following conditions.

1. The petitioner shall appear before the I.O within

30 days from the date of this order.

2. The petitioner shall not tamper with the

Prosecution witnesses either directly or indirectly in any manner.

3. He shall regularly appear before the concerned

court as and when required.

4. He shall not abscond from the ordinary

residence and he should furnish the address proof to the concerned police.

5. He shall not indulge in any kind of offence.

6. He shall not leave the jurisdiction of the court

without prior permission. Crl.Misc.2983/2024 If any of the above conditions is violated the I.O is at liberty to move for cancellation of bail. (Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and typed by her, revised, corrected and then pronounced by me in the open court on this the 15th day of May, 2024) (Sabappa) LXVIII Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City. Crl.Misc.2983/2024 ORDERS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT, VIDE SEPARATE ORDER Bail petition filed by the petitioner under Sec.438 of Cr.P.C is hereby allowed. Petitioner is ordered to be released on anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest in connection with Cr.No.306/2023 (C.C.No.7456/2024) on executing his personal bond for Rs.50,000/- with one surety for the likesum on the following conditions.

1. The petitioner shall appear before the I.O within 30 days from the date of this order.

2. The petitioner shall not tamper with the Prosecution witnesses either directly or indirectly in any manner.

3. He shall regularly appear before the concerned court as and when required.

4. He shall not abscond from the ordinary residence and he should furnish the address proof to the concerned police.

5. He shall not indulge in any kind of offence.

6. He shall not leave the jurisdiction of the court without prior permission.

If any of the above conditions is violated the I.O is at liberty to move for cancellation of bail. LXVIII A.C.C & S.J, Bengaluru City. Crl.Misc.2983/2024