In a significant order, the LXVII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, has granted bail to four individuals accused of preparing to commit dacoity in the city. The bail, granted under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.), pertains to Crime No. 305/2023 registered at the Sampigehalli Police Station for offences under Sections 399 (Making preparation to commit dacoity) and 402 (Assembling for purpose of committing dacoity) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
The order, pronounced by Judge Sri. Kashim Churikhan on September 8, 2023, addresses the bail petition filed by the four petitioners: Alexander @ Alex (21), Mubarak (24), Vinod (22), and Nazeer (26), all residents of the Bengaluru area.
Details of the Alleged Crime
According to the prosecution’s brief facts, the incident occurred on August 22, 2023, around 5:50 p.m. near AJBJ Ground, Neelagiri Thopu, on Sampigehalli Main Road. It was alleged that the accused had formed a group, holding deadly weapons and making preparations to commit dacoity on members of the public moving on the road. The police, acting on a tip-off or suo-moto, rushed to the spot with staff and panchas, apprehended the accused, seized the deadly weapons under a mahazar (a document recording the seizure), and registered a suo-moto case against them.
The petitioners, arrayed as Accused Nos. 1 to 4, challenged these allegations in their bail application, arguing that they were innocent and had been falsely implicated in the case.
Petitioners’ Arguments for Bail
Represented by Advocate Sri. B.G.S., the petitioners contended that there were no reasonable grounds to believe they were guilty of the alleged offences. They stressed that, apart from the informant police officer and his staff, there were no eye-witnesses to confirm their presence at the spot with deadly weapons. They further argued that the police had falsely implicated them merely for “statistical purpose.”
A central part of their plea was the fact that the offences alleged—Sections 399 and 402 IPC—are not punishable with either death or imprisonment for life, making them eligible for bail. The petitioners, claiming to hail from respectable families and having deep roots in society, asserted they had no bad antecedents, though this was later contested by the prosecution for two of the accused. They assured the court that they were permanent residents of the addresses provided and would not abscond. Crucially, they expressed their readiness to abide by any terms and conditions imposed by the court, including furnishing surety, if enlarged on bail. They highlighted the hardship their continued detention would cause to their respective families.
Prosecution’s Opposition and Court’s Deliberation
The learned Public Prosecutor filed objections vehemently opposing the bail application. The prosecution contended that the investigation was still ongoing and that there were prima-facie materials indicating the commission of the alleged offences. Significantly, the prosecution alleged that Petitioners Nos. 1 (Alexander @ Alex) and 3 (Vinod) were habitual offenders with several cases registered against them in various police stations. The primary apprehension raised by the prosecution was that if released on bail at this stage, the petitioners might threaten prosecution witnesses, destroy evidence, hamper the investigation by fleeing from justice, and potentially perpetrate similar offences.
Despite the strong opposition, the court focused on the nature of the alleged crime and the principles governing bail. The presiding judge observed that the facts concerning the accused assembling and making preparations to commit dacoity need to be established during a full-fledged trial through authenticated testimony of prosecution witnesses.
The court noted that the petitioners have been in judicial custody since the date of their arrest. A crucial consideration was the principle that “Incarceration of the petitioners in judicial custody for indefinite period till conclusion of trial does not serve any purpose.” Furthermore, the Investigating Officer had not specified any requirement for the petitioners’ custodial interrogation at this stage, indicating the investigation, at least in its immediate phase, could proceed without their continuous detention.
The Final Decision and Conditions
Ultimately, the court determined that the apprehension of the prosecution could be adequately dealt with by imposing stringent conditions. Answering Point No. 1 in the affirmative, the court ruled in favor of the petitioners.
The bail petition under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. was allowed, subject to the following strict conditions:
- Personal Bond and Surety: Each petitioner is required to execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Only) along with a surety for a like sum.
- Cooperation with Investigation: The petitioners shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when required for the purpose of investigation.
- No Tampering: The petitioners shall not tamper with the prosecution witnesses.
- Trial Attendance: The petitioners shall appear before the trial court on all the hearing dates.
- No Further Offences: The petitioners shall not indulge in committing any offences.
This ruling underscores the judiciary’s balance between the presumption of innocence, the right to liberty, and the need to ensure the fair conduct of the investigation and trial process, even in cases involving allegations of serious crimes like preparation for dacoity. The conditions imposed aim to mitigate the risk of flight, witness intimidation, and further criminal activity, allowing the accused to participate in their defense while awaiting trial. The case, Crl.Misc.No.8515/2023, now proceeds for trial before the learned VII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (C.M.M.), Bengaluru.