KABC010271952024

IN THE COURT OF THE LII ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS

JUDGE, BANGALORE (CCH-53)

Dated this the 29th day of November, 2024

PRESENT

Sri.Gangappa Irappa Patil., B.A., LL.B. (Spl.).,

LII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bangalore.

Crl.Misc.No. 9772/2024

petitioner: Sri. Sharavana.G @ Shuru,

s/o late Gunashekar A
aged about 27 years
residing at No. 109, JCW nagar,
V.V.Giri colony, Sheshadripuram,
Bengaluru 560 021

(Accused No. 20 in JC)

(By Sri.B.G.Anantha Murthy, Advocate)

-V/S-
Respondent : State of Karnataka
By Sheshadripuram police station,
Bengaluru.
(Represented by learned Public
Prosecutor)
 2
Crl.Misc.No.9772/2024

ORDER ON BAIL PETITION FILED

UNDER SECTION 483 OF BNSS 2023
This petition is filed by the petitioner u/Sec.483 of BNSS 2023,
praying to grant regular bail to the petitioner in Crime No.78/2024 of
Sheshadripuram police station for the offences punishable u/Sec.
103(1), 3(5), 61(2) of BNS 2023 on the file of learned 1 st ACMM,
Bengaluru.

2. It is stated in the petition that the respondent police have

registered the case in Crime No.78/2024 against 14 and others
alleging the offences punishable u/Sec. 103(1), 3(5), 61(2) of BNS
2023 on the basis of information given by Charulatha K. It is further
stated in the petition that the petitioner is innocent and he has not
committed any offences as alleged against him. During the course of
investigation , the respondent police have arrested the petitioner in the
above case on 1.08.2024 and from this date he is in JC. He is no
where connected to the above case, the entire case is depends on
circumstantial evidence. The police have not collected any evidence in
respect of the involvement of the present petitioner. The petitioner is
permanent resident of address mentioned in the cause title. The
petitioner is ready to abide by any terms and conditions that may be
imposed by the court for his enlargement on bail. The petitioner is
ready and willing to offer surety to the satisfaction of the court. Hence,
the petitioner has prayed to allow the petition.
 3
Crl.Misc.No.9772/2024

3. The learned Public Prosecutor has filed the objection to

the petition along with I.O. report by opposing the grant of bail to the
petitioner on the ground that the offences alleged to have been
committed by the petitioner are grave in nature and against to society.
It is further stated in the objection that the petitioner along with other
accused have entered into criminal conspiracy to murder the deceased
and in view of said criminal conspiracy, they have killed the deceased.
The offences alleged against the petitioner are exclusively punishable
with death or imprisonment for life. If the petitioner is enlarged on bail
he may hamper the investigation of the case and may try to destroy the
evidence. The petitioner may threaten the informant and other
prosecution witnesses. The petitioner may commit similar offences in
future. On these and other grounds, the Learned Public Prosecutor
has prayed to reject the petition filed by the petitioner.

4. Heard the arguments of Learned Public Prosecutor and

Learned counsel for the petitioner. Perused the petition, objection and
other materials on record.

5. The points that arisen for consideration are as under:

(1) Whether the petitioner has made out grounds
for granting bail u/s.483 of BNSS 2023.,?

(2) What order?

 4
Crl.Misc.No.9772/2024

6. My findings on the above points are as under:

(1) Point No.1 .. In the Negative
(2) Point No.2 ..As per final order
for the following:
REASONS
7. Point No.1:- The petitioner has filed the present petition
praying for grant of regular bail to him in Crime No.78/2024 of
Seshadripura police station, for the offences punishable u/Sec. 103(1),
3(5), 61(2) of BNS 2023, which is registered by the respondent police
on the basis of the information given by one Charulatha K, pending
before the learned 1st ACMM, Bengaluru. The petitioner has produced
certified copy of FIR, complaint and other documents.

8. It is the case of the prosecution that it is informed by the

complainant that one Ganesh was murdered on 13.9.2022 and the
husband of complainant by name Ajith Kumar was the accused in that
case and Ajith Kumar was arrested in that case and later he was
released on bail and hence there is enmity between two family of
Ganesh and Ajithkumar and there was quarrel between the family of
Ajith Kumar and Ganesh and in this background the accused by name
1. Naga, 2. Vinod Motte Kanna, 3. Manja, 4. Arun Kumar, 5. Ranjith
Kumar, 6.Moorthy,7. Mogan, 8.Kundapuri, 9.Durgadevi, 10.Saraswathi,
11.Singamalai, 12.Ranjith, 13.Mary, 14.Krupadevi and others have
hatched a plan to kill Ajith Kumar or his family members and in this
background on 01.08.2024 at about 3.45 pm Ajith Kumar left in his two
 5
Crl.Misc.No.9772/2024

wheeler bearing No. KA-04-JJ 3357 and after 10 to 15 minutes the

complainant came to know that Ajith Kumar was murdered at Rashildar
street, and the complainant rushed to the spot and identified her
husband and noticed that he was murdered by assaulting on his head
and his right hand was amputated. Hence she lodged the complaint
against the accused by name 1. Naga, 2. Vinod Motte Kanna,
3. Manja, 4. Arun Kumar, 5. Ranjith Kumar, 6.Moorthy, 7. Mogan,
8.Kundapuri, 9.Durgadevi, 10.Saraswathi, 11.Singamalai, 12.Ranjith,
13.Mary, 14.Krupadevi and others. On the basis of the above
complaint, the FIR is registered against the accused. The investigation
is completed.

9. The present petitioner is contending that the investigation has

been completed and the I.O. has filed the charge sheet and the
present petitioner is not required for further interrogation. Hence, he
may be released on bail. On perusal of the records, speaks about
involvement of the present petitioner in the crime, merely on the
completion of investigation, it will not be a ground to release the
accused. This cardinal principle has been discussed in the case of
Navin Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh decided by Hon`ble Supreme
Court of India.

10. The Learned Public Prosecutor has argued that the

alleged offences are grave in nature and the offence u/s 302 of IPC is
punishable with death or imprisonment for life. Though the name of
 6
Crl.Misc.No.9772/2024

the petitioner is not mentioned in the FIR, the way in which the
accused have committed the murder of Ajith Kumar is to be looked
into and there is enmity between two families. Hence the learned P.P
prays to reject the bail petition of the petitioner.

11. On careful and meticulous perusal of the material available

on record though the petitioner has contended that he is not involved
in the conspiracy to eliminate Ajith Kumar, looking into the gravity of
the offence and the photographs of the deceased and the way in
which he was brutally murdered, it is not just and proper to grant bail
to the petitioner at this stage.

12. In support of his contention, the counsel for the petitioner has
argued that the present petitioner is not at all involved in any such
crime as alleged by the prosecution and he has been falsely implicated
by the police and also he relied on a decision in AIR 2011 SC 312 in
case of Siddaram Satlingappa Mhetre vs. State of Maharasthra and
others and prays to enlarge the petitioner on bail.

13. Learned P.P. has relied on the decision of the Supreme

Court in the case of P. Chidambaram Vs CBI where in Hon`ble
Supreme Cour in the said case has held as under:
 7
Crl.Misc.No.9772/2024

The jurisdiction to grant bail has to be exercised on

the basis of the well-settled principles having regard
to the facts and circumstances of each case.
………….There is no hard and fast rule regarding
grant or refusal to grant bail. Each case has to be
considered on the facts and circumstances of each
case and on its own merits. The discretion of the
court has to be exercised judiciously and not in an
arbitrary manner.

The principles discussed in the aforesaid citation are aptly applicable to

the present case. Under these facts and circumstances, this court is
of the opinion that the discretion of this court cannot be exercised in
favour of the petitioner to grant regular bail to the petitioner since the
offences alleged against the accused are heinous in nature. Therefore,
the petition filed by the petitioner is deserves to be dismissed. Having
considered the nature of the offence alleged against the accused and
having considered the other facts and circumstances as discussed
above, the petitioner has not made out any grounds to grant bail and
hence the petition is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, this court
answers the point No.1 in the Negative.

14. Point No.2:- In view of my findings on point No.1, I

proceed to pass the following:

 8
Crl.Misc.No.9772/2024

ORDER

The petition filed by the petitioner u/sec.483

of BNSS 2023, is hereby rejected.

(Dictated to the Sr.Shr./SGI directly on computer, script thereof is

corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in the open court on this
the 29th day of November, 2024).
GANGAPPA I Digitally signed by GANGAPPA I
PATIL
PATIL Date: 2024.12.04 12:55:48 +0530
( Gangappa Irappa Patil )
LII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru.
 9
Crl.Misc.No.9772/2024

Final order pronounced in open court, vide separate

order.;

ORDER
The petition filed by the petitioner
u/sec.483 of BNSS 2023, is hereby
rejected.

LII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,

Bengaluru.