This is a petition filed under section 439 of Cr.P.C. The petitioner is accused No.1 in a case registered by the respondent-police and now being investigated by City Crime Branch, Bengaluru in relation to an incident that took place in a restaurant called Fergy Café, U.B. City, Bengaluru at about 10.00 p.m. on 17.2.2018.

2. The first information report was given by one Preveen Venkatachalaiah. The gist of his report is that he came to Bengaluru to meet his friend Vidwat who had fractured his leg four weeks ago. They all went to Fergy Cafe to have dinner and at that time, a verbal fight took place between Vidwat and Nalapad Harris. About 10 - 15 people hit Vidwat mercilessly on his face, head, chest and broke his nose. They hit him with bottles and rings. Vidwat fell down bleeding and was unconscious. He was asked to apologize to Harris, as he is the son of a local MLA. In spite of repeated requests, they did not stop hitting Vidwat. Later on, Vidwat was shifted to Mallya Hospital. He was taken to Intensive Care Unit. Those 10 - 15 people came to the hospital and again threatened and abused Vidwat. Based on this report, initially the Cubbon Park police registered a case of crime in relation to the offences punishable under sections 506, 506B, 326, 141, 143, 144, 146, 147, 341 read with section 149 of IPC. Subsequently, the offence punishable under section 307 of IPC was added in the FIR.

3. The petitioner moved the Court of Session for bail and his application was rejected. Therefore, the petitioner is before this Court.

4. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri C.V. Nagesh and the Special Public Prosecutor, Sri M.S. Shyamsundar, assisted by advocate Sri Murthy Dayanand Naik appearing for applicant, Sri A. Alam Pasha whose application under section 301(2) Cr.P.C. was allowed.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that a drunken brawl in a bar and restaurant has unnecessarily been given a hype by the media, both print and electronic, just because the petitioner happens to be a son of sitting MLA. He argues that looking into the offences invoked by the police in the FIR, except the offence under section 326 IPC, all other offences are bailable. He argues that in the facts and circumstances, the offence under section 326 of IPC also does not get attracted. In this context, he argues that in the first information report, given by Praveen Venkatachalaiah, it is written that Vidwat was hit with bottles and jugs. According to him, bottle is not a deadly weapon; neither a jug too. He reads section 326 and argues that for invoking an offence punishable under section 326 of IPC, an instrument must be of such a kind or nature which can be used for shooting, stabbing or cutting, or which is likely to cause death. A bottle or a jug cannot be used for shooting, stabbing or cutting, or an assault made by using a bottle or jug is unlikely to cause death. It is his argument that the offence alleged against the petitioner, can be brought within the scope of section 325 of IPC which is bailable. Therefore, the petitioner, as a matter of right, is entitled to bail, as all other offences are bailable. It was his further argument that the police have unnecessarily invoked sections 141 and 146 of IPC which are defining sections.

6. His second point of argument is that at a subsequent stage, during investigation, the police would invoke an offence punishable under section 307 of IPC against the petitioner by taking permission of the Magistrate. Inclusion of this offence in the FIR was totally unwarranted inasmuch as after the investigation, the investigator has all the right to file charge sheet even for an offence punishable under section 307 of IPC, if his investigation discloses that such an offence has been committed. This inclusion of an offence punishable under section 307 of IPC was designed by the investigator succumbing to the pressure of the family members of the injured, with a motive to s