Crl. Misc. No.2894/2024 KABC010081322024 IN THE COURT OF THE LXI ADDL. CITY CIVIL, SESSIONS JUDGE: BENGALURU CITY Dated this the 15 th day of April, 2024 -: PRESENT :- SMT.NISHARANI A.C., B.A., LL.B., III ACC & SJ, Bengaluru C/C LXI ACC & SJ Bangalore, (CCH-62) CRL. MISC. No.2894/2024 Petitioner/s : 1. Wilson S/o.Philips Aged about 26years R/a.53 Hoysala Road Indira Colony Attiguppe Bengaluru-560 040. (Accused No.1 in JC) (By Sri.Sonappa Reddy Desai, Adv.) V/s. Respondent : The State by Chandra Layout Police Station Bengaluru. (Rep. by Public Prosecutor, Crl. Misc. No.2894/2024 Bengaluru.) ORDER ON BAIL APPLICATION ONE FILED BY THE PETITIONER UNDER SECTION 439 OF Cr.P.C. This criminal Mis. Petition is filed by the petitioner under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., seeking the relief of regular bail in relation to the case bearing No-Cr.-468/2017 now in SC No.1019/2018 which is registered by the Chandralayout Police Station, Bengaluru alleging that petitioner has committed the offences punishable under Section 307, 326, 504 R/w. 34 of IPC.

2. The petitioner contents that he is innocent of the

alleged offences and he has not committed any offences as alleged in the complaint by the complainant and there are no ingredients to attract the offence alleged against the petitioner and there is no prima-facie case against him and the injured has already been discharged from the hospital and he is out of danger and investigation has been completed and charge sheet is also filed and as such his presence in judicial custody is not warranted and earlier he was granted bail during crime stage by this Court on 18.03.2017 and again in Crl. Misc. No.9372/2017 dt.23.12.2017 and then petitionermet with an accident and was under bed rest and due Lock Down Covid-19 pandemic he could not appear before the curt as per the guidelines and the Hon'bleCourt Crl. Misc. No.2894/2024 issued NBW & Proclamation and and he hails from respectable family and has no bad antecedences and he is peace loving and law abiding citizen and he is permanent resident of the address as shown in the cause title of the petition and he is ready and willing to abide by the conditions that may be imposed by the court and he is also ready to offer solvent surety to the satisfaction of the court for his release on bail, hence he is entitled for bail.

3. On the other hand the learned Public Prosecutor has

filed his objections & opposed the above application that the grounds urged for granting bail are not satisfactory & the charge sheet and other materials placed on record prima-facie discloses the involvement of the petitioner in commission of the alleged heinous offences of attempt to commit murder punishable under Section 307 of IPC and now at this stage if the petitioner is granted bail then he may threaten, abscond & tamper the prosecution witnesses which in turn may hamper the trial & accordingly prayed for rejection of the bail petition.

4. In view of the above said facts and circumstances, the

points that arise for my consideration are as follows; 1) Whether the bail petition filed by the petitioner under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., deserves Crl. Misc. No.2894/2024 to be allowed? 2) To what Order?

5. I have carefully perused the entire materials available

on record and heard the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent.

6. Now, my findings on the above points are as follows:-

Point No.1 – In Negative Point No.2 – As per final Order, for the following; R E A S O N S

7. Point No.1:- On perusal of the FIR, complaint &

charge sheet it is alleged that on 22.09.2017 the accused Niranjan had called the complainant along with his friends namely Dharshan, Lingaraju, Ravi, Sanjay, Sudrshan, Guru and Yogesh to celebrate Ganesha Festival near Narasimha Temple at Attigupee & at about 6.00 p.m., the complainant and his friends named above went near Narasimha Temple at Attigupee and the accused Niranjan took them to 2nd main junction for Ganesha Pooja Festival & the accused Niranjan, Darshan, Lingaraju, Ravi, Sanjay, Sudarshan, Guru, Yogesh were talking and dancing & at about 7.30 p.m., Darshan and Sudarshan were dancing and asked to leave place as they wanted to dance with Niranjan friends & for that some body Crl. Misc. No.2894/2024 told that they had came from some other area and asking them to leave the place to dance and then scolded, abused then in filthy language and started to do fight with them & then by that time the complainants friends compromised them but the accused Niranjan and his friends i.e., the petitioner/Wilson, Shivu and two – three unknown persons abusing him in filthy language and petitioner suddenly opened one knife and assaulted to his stomach and thereafter Niranjan and Shivu have also assaulted on his neck and to his right hand shoulder & as a result of which he had sustained grievous injury and thereby committed the offences punishable under Section 307, 326, 504 R/w. Section 34 of IPC.

8. Now, it is the contention of the petitioner that he is

innocent and he has not committed nor involved in commission of the offences as alleged either directly or indirectly & a false case has been foisted against him & he undertake to abide by the conditions that may be imposed by the court.

9. On the other hand though the prosecution has

opposed the case of the petitioner, the same holds water as the charge sheet & other materials placed on record prima- facie shows the involvement of the petitioner in commission of Crl. Misc. No.2894/2024 the alleged heinous offences of attempt to commit murder punishable under Section 307 of IPC & carries punishment of imprisonment for life.

10. I am aware that this Court cannot and is not

supposed to sift the evidence made available by the prosecution at the time of deciding the bail petition. However, only for the purpose of deciding that whether the petitioner is entitled for bail or not, I discuss the facts alleged by the prosecution and whatever I say, while disposing of this bail petition, cannot be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the of the main case.

11. And more over since the charge sheet discloses that

involvement of the petitioner in commission of the alleged heinous offence of attempt to commit murder which is punishable under section 307 of IPC & carries punishment of imprisonment for life & since there is likelihood of threatening the complainant & tampering of the prosecution witnesses by the petitioner & since in a ruling of AIR 2013 (Crl) 627 it has been clearly held that 'While considering the bail application the Court has to consider not only the nature of the acquisition, gravity of offence, but also consider the reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with the possibility of the accused & so Crl. Misc. No.2894/2024 also the Court has to be consider the large interest of public/state' & since in a recent ruling of 2021 (4) Crimes 461 (SC) the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has clearly held that 'Section 439 of Cr.P.C. – Bail in Section 307 & 302 of IPC – High Court has not at all taken into consideration of facts of case, nature of allegations, gravity of offences and role attributed to accused- Impugned Orders passed by the High Court releasing the accused on bail cannot be sustained' & since in a ruling of AIR 2017 SC 1685 i.e., in the case of Virupaksha Gowda V/s. State of Karnataka, it has been clearly held that 'Filing of the charge sheet does not in any manner lessen the allegations made by the prosecution. On the contrary filing of the charge sheet establishes that after due investigation the investigating agency having found the materials has placed the charge sheet for trial of the accused and hence it substantiates prima-facie case against the accused' and since the petitioner has not made out any cogent case with sufficient grounds to grant bail then, I have answered the above point No.1 in negative.

12. Point No.2 :- In view of the discussion made on

point No.1 and further holding it in the negative, I proceed to pass the following:- Crl. Misc. No.2894/2024 O R D E R The bail petition filed by the petitioner u/s 439 of Cr.P.C., is hereby rejected. (Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and typed by her, corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 15th day of April, 2024). (NISHARANI A.C) C/C LXI ACC & SJ, B’luru Crl. Misc. No.2894/2024 15.04.2024 P-SRD R-PP

Order

Order pronounced in open Court (vide separate order) with the following operative portion:- O R D E R The bail petition filed by the petitioner u/s 439 of Cr.P.C., is hereby rejected. (NISHARANI A.C) I/C LXI ACC & SJ, B’luru Crl. Misc. No.2894/2024 Crl. Misc. No.2894/2024