In a ruling that underscores the importance of direct evidence and identity in criminal prosecution, the LV Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, has granted regular bail to a man accused in a 2023 chain snatching incident.

Overview of the Case

The case pertains to an incident of robbery that occurred on the evening of June 8, 2023, in the Banashankari II Stage area of Bengaluru.

The Prosecution’s Allegations:

The case was registered based on a complaint filed by Smt. Saraswathamma S.M. According to her complaint:

• On June 8, 2023, between 8:40 PM and 8:50 PM, she was walking near her house on the 23rd Main Road.
• An unknown person approached her on a motorcycle from the opposite direction.
• The person snatched her mangalya chain, valued at approximately Rs. 2 Lakhs and weighing between 35 to 40 grams, before escaping from the spot.
• The offence was registered under Section 392 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which deals with robbery.

The petitioner, Achyuth Kumar, was subsequently arrested and remanded to judicial custody during the ongoing investigation. His initial bail application before the Magistrate was rejected, prompting him to file a petition before the Sessions Court under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C.

The Petitioner’s Defense and Police Opposition

The Plea for Bail:

The petitioner’s counsel argued vehemently for his release, asserting the following points:

1. False Implication: The petitioner maintained his innocence, claiming he was falsely implicated by the police.
2. Lack of Identity in Complaint: A critical argument was that the complainant’s initial report did not mention the identity or any distinguishing features of the chain-snatcher.
3. Coerced Statement: The police recorded the petitioner’s voluntary statement based on their “whims and fancies.”
4. No Habitual Offender Status: While acknowledging the police’s intention to fix several cases to restrain him from obtaining bail, the petitioner contended that he was not a “habitual offender” in the legal sense of the current crime.
5. Compliance: He confirmed that he was ready to abide by any conditions imposed by the Court.
6. Punishment: The alleged offence is not one punishable with death or life imprisonment.

The Prosecution’s Stance:

The learned Public Prosecutor strongly opposed the bail petition, raising a serious contention regarding the petitioner’s criminal history. The prosecution contended that:

• The petitioner is a habitual offender.
• They presented a report from the Investigating Officer claiming that 145 cases (later stated as 147 in the report during arguments) were registered against the petitioner across different police stations.
• There was a high risk that if enlarged on bail, he might tamper with prosecution witnesses or abscond.

The Court’s Critical Analysis and Reasoning

The Court meticulously considered the arguments and the material available on record, ultimately concluding that the arguments raised by the defense held more weight, particularly concerning the gaps in the prosecution’s case.

Focus on Lack of Evidence:

The Sessions Judge highlighted two primary reasons for granting bail:

1. Identity Deficiency: The court noted that the complaint itself did not mention the identity features of the accused. This lack of specific identification in the initial report undermined the subsequent claim of the petitioner’s involvement.
2. Failure to Recover Property: The court found it significant that despite the petitioner being arrested and taken into police custody for investigation, the stolen property—the mangalya chain—was not seized from his possession.

The court found that these omissions raised reasonable doubt about the strength of the evidence connecting the petitioner directly to the crime.

Addressing Criminal Antecedents:

Regarding the police’s submission of a report listing 147 pending cases, the court made a decisive observation:

“At the time of his arguments, the learned Public Prosecutor has submitted a report of the Investigating Officer, wherein it is mentioned that 147 cases are pending against this petitioner. But that cannot be a ground to reject this bail petition.”

The court clarified that while criminal antecedents are a consideration, they cannot be the sole basis for rejecting bail, especially when the crucial material linking the accused to the current offence (like the stolen property or a clear identification) is absent. The court further noted that the petitioner has been in judicial custody since his arrest and there are no immediate criminal antecedents directly related to the current case (as the previous cases are pending).

The Final Judicial Order and Conditions

Based on the reasons of unseized property and lack of identity in the complaint, the court answered the point for determination in the AFFIRMATIVE and allowed the petition.

Conditions for Release:

The petitioner, Achyuth Kumar, was ordered to be released on bail in Crime No. 168/2023 upon executing a Personal Bond for Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh) with one surety for the like sum.

The release was made subject to the following conditions to mitigate the prosecution’s apprehension of tampering or absconding:

1. The petitioner shall not tamper with prosecution witnesses in any manner.
2. He shall co-operate with the Investigating Officer as and when called for investigation.
3. He shall not involve in any criminal activities.
4. He shall furnish proof of his residential address and shall intimate the court of any change of address.
5. He shall mark his attendance in the respondent police station on the first Sunday of each month between 11:00 A.M. and 5:00 P.M. until the final report is filed.

The Court also directed the office to immediately send a soft copy of the order to the concerned Jail Superintendent for prompt compliance.