ORDER

The petitioners/accused Nos.5 to 9 have filed this petition under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. seeking anticipatory bail in the event of their arrest by Bagalur Police Station, Bengaluru City, Cr.No.51/2022 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 448, 354, 323, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC, pending on the file of the Civil Judge and JMFC at Devanahalli in CC No.3430/2023.

2. The allegations of the prosecution disclose that, on 21.03.2022 at about 5.00 p.m., in front of the house belonging to complainant situated in Kadusonnappanahalli Village, the petitioners along with other accused formed unlawful assembly by holding deadly weapons and trespassed in the compound wall of complainant house. While accused Nos.2, 4 and 8 have beaten the elderly persons with clubs, while accused Nos.1 to 3 and 5 pulled the clothes of first informant and beaten the CW-4 when she tried to pacify the quarrel. It is alleged that accused No.6 threatened the first informant and beaten CW-5 with hockey stick over shoulder and accused No.1 hit CW-2 on his left eye, accused No.4 assaulted the witnesses with club over head and all other accused have assaulted by hands. On the basis of this complaint, crime came to be registered.

3. After completing the investigation, the Investigating Officer submitted the charge sheet. The petitioners were not shown as accused in FIR but, in the charge sheet, they were included as accused Nos.5 to 9 and shown to be absconding. The learned Magistrate though they were shown to be absconding has issued summons rather than the warrant.

4. The petitioners/accused Nos.5 to 9 apprehending their arrest have approached the learned Sessions Judge seeking anticipatory bail and learned Sessions Judge rejected their bail petition on the ground that they are only summoned and there is no apprehensions of their arrest. Hence, the petitioner is before this Court.

5. Heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent state. Perused the records.

6. The allegations of the complaint discloses that on 21.03.2022, the petitioners have trespassed in the compound wall of the complainant and attacked them with sticks and clubs etc., causing simple injuries and in the said process, they have also outraged the modesty of the female members of the family of the complainant. However, on perusal of the records, it is evident that the name of the accused Nos.1 to 4 alone is referred there and the name of the present petitioners was not disclosed. But, in the charge sheet they were implicated as accused Nos.5 to 9. It is further evident from the charge sheet that accused Nos.5 to 9 were shown to be absconding.

7. The learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of the offence and though the accused persons Nos. 5 to 9 are shown to be absconding, he has proceeded to issue summons and not warrant. Admittedly, summonses were duly served on them. The recital in the charge sheet disclose that they are absconding appears to be a false statement. After service of summons, the petitioners/ accused Nos.5 to 9 apprehending their arrest since they are shown to be absconding, approached the learned Sessions Judge who rejected their bail petition on the ground that there is no apprehension of arrest.

8. However, it is also evident from the records that the Public Prosecutor has objected the bail petition by filing objection statement. When the learned Public Prosecutor has objected the bail petition, it is prima-facie sufficient to hold that there was apprehension of arrest of the petitioners. The learned Sessions Judge did not consider this aspect and in a mechanical way, since summons was issued, proceeded to reject the bail petition. But, the way the prosecution is objecting the bail petition itself is a clear indication of apprehension of arrest.

9. It is also evident from the records produced by the learned counsel for the petitioners/accused Nos.5 to 9 that a counter case is al