IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL CITY CIVIL AND

SESSIONS JUDGE, AT BENGALURU

Dated this the 3rd day of January, 2023

PRESENT: Sri Ramachandra [Link],

[Link]., L.L.M.
Principal City Civil and Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru.

[Link].1946/2022
Complainant : State of Karnataka by
Sampangiram Nagar Police Station,
Bengaluru.
[Represented by Public Prosecutor]

Vs.

Accused : Ajith & others

Accused/ :1. Ajith @ Babu,

Applicant Major,
R/at No.6, A- Block, BSUP Quarters,
Near Jasma Mandir, Austin Town,
Bangalore – 47.
(By Sri [Link], Adv.,)

ORDER

Accused No.1 has filed this petition under Section 439

of Cr.P.C. to grant him regular bail.

2. It is stated by the accused that, a case was registered

against him and others for the offences punishable under

 [Link].1946/2022

Section 397 and 411 r/w.S.34 of IPC in [Link].60/2022. The

Investigating Officer took up further investigation and after

completion of investigation filed the charge sheet against the

accused persons before IX ACMM, Bengaluru.

It is further stated that, since from the date of arrest

this accused No.1 is in judicial custody. The Investigating

Officer has completed the investigation and filed the charge

sheet. Hence, the presence of this accused is no more

required for further investigation.

It is further stated that, he is ready to abide by all the

conditions that may be imposed by the court. He is the

permanent resident of the address stated in the cause title.

He undertakes not to tamper with the prosecution witnesses.

Therefore, for all these reasons, accused prayed to allow the

application.

3. Copy of the bail application is served upon the learned

Public Prosecutor. He resisted the bail application by filing

detailed objection statement.

 [Link].1946/2022

4. The learned Public Prosecutor has reiterated the

contents of the complaint in his objection statement. In

addition to that, it is contended that, accused is not entitled

for bail as prima-facie materials are placed on record by the

prosecution. If he is granted bail, he may tamper the

prosecution witnesses. Therefore, for all these reasons, it is

prayed by the prosecution to dismiss the application.

5. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the

accused and learned Public Prosecutor. Meticulously perused

the records.

6. The points that would arise for my consideration are as

under:

1. Whether the accused has made out

acceptable grounds to grant him
regular bail as prayed for?

2. What Order?

7. My answer to the above points are:

Point No.1:- In the affirmative

Point No.2:- As per final order;

for the following:

 [Link].1946/2022

REASONS

8. Point No.1:- In this case as stated supra, the police

have completed the investigation and filed the charge sheet

against the accused persons. Accused No.1 in the bail

application has stated that, he is in judicial custody since

from the date of his arrest.

9. In a judgment reported in AIR 2004 SC 1866 in the

case of Kalyan Chandra Sarkar Vs. Rajesh Ranjan @ Pappu

Yadav, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the Court at

the time of considering the bail application should exercise its

discretion in a judicious manner and not as a matter of

course. It is further held that at the time of considering the

bail application a detailed examination of evidence and

elaborate documentation of the merit of the case need not be

undertaken. There is only a need to indicate in such orders

the reason for prima-facie concluding why bail was being

granted. It is further held that, nature of accusation and the

severity of punishment in case of conviction and supporting

evidence, reasonable apprehension of tampering with the

 [Link].1946/2022

witness or apprehension of threat to the Complainant and

prima-facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge

are the necessary considerations to be kept in mind by the

Court.

10. We are at the stage of considering the bail application.

At this stage, the Court is not expected to conduct a mini trial

to ascertain the truth or otherwise of the allegations so made

in the complaint. Only on the basis of the prima-facie

materials the Court has to judge whether to grant bail to the

accused or not.

11. The offences so alleged against the accused persons are

under Section 397 and 411 of IPC, and Section 25-1(B) (b)4 of

Indian Arms Act. Though the offences are non-bailable, but

the offences are not punishable with death or imprisonment

for life. It is also settled law that bail is a rule and rejection is

an exception. Granting of bail does not amount to acquittal

and rejection thereof does not amount to conviction. Personal

liberty of a person cannot be curtailed by putting him behind

the bars.
 [Link].1946/2022

12. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dataram

Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2018) 3 SCC 22 held as

under:

“A fundamental postulate of criminal jurisprudence is

the presumption of innocence, meaning thereby that a
person is believed to be innocent until found guilty.
However, there are instances in our criminal law where
a reverse onus has been placed on an accused with
regard to some specific offences but that is another
matter and does not detract from the fundamental
postulate in respect of other offences. Yet another
important facet of our criminal jurisprudence is that the
grant of bail is the general rule and putting a person in
jail or in a prison or in a correction home (whichever
expression one may wish to use) is an exception.
Unfortunately, some of these basic principles appear to
have been lost sight of with the result that more and
more persons are being incarcerated and for longer
periods. This does not do any good to our criminal
jurisprudence or to our society.

13. So also, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case

Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, (2014) 8 SCC 273, which

makes it mandatory that in any case where the offence is

punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend

 [Link].1946/2022

to 7 years, the accused may not be automatically arrested and

the Magistrate may not authorize the detention casually and

mechanically.

14. Perusal of the objection statement being filed by the

prosecution shows that they are the formal objections being

filed to every bail petition by the prosecution. In the petition

accused No.1 has undertaken to abide by the conditions of

the Court and to offer surety to the satisfaction of the Court.

At the time of considering the bail application the Court has

to see whether the presence of accused No.1 can be secured

before the Court at the time of trial. Therefore, there is

nothing on record to indicate that the presence of the accused

No.1 in this application cannot be secured before the Court at

the time of trial.

15. Considering the nature and gravity of the offence, in the

considered view of this court, if the accused No.1 is granted

bail with stringent conditions, it would safeguard the interest

of the prosecution also. Therefore, if all these factual features

are put together, it can be stated that, the accused No.1 has
 [Link].1946/2022

made out acceptable grounds to grant him bail as prayed, but

subject to conditions. Hence, I record my finding on point

No.1 in the affirmative.

16. Point No.2: Resultantly, I pass the following:-

ORDER

The bail application filed by the accused No.1

Section 439 of Cr.P.C., is hereby allowed.

Accused No.1 is ordered to be released on bail

in Sampangiramnagar P.S., Crime No.60/2022 on
his executing the personal bond for a sum of
Rs.1,00,000/- with two sureties for the like-sum
amount, subject to following conditions ;

1. Accused No.1 shall appear before the

court on every date of hearing, unless
otherwise exempted for genuine reason.

2. He shall not leave the jurisdiction of the

court without prior permission.

3. He shall not tamper with the prosecution

witnesses in any manner.

Breach of any of these conditions would

entail cancellation of bail.
(Dictated to the Judgment Writer in open court,
transcribed by her, order corrected and signed on this the 3 rd
day of January, 2023.)

(RAMACHANDRA [Link]),
Principal City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru.