Bengaluru, July 1, 2022 — In a significant order passed on July 1, 2022, the LXI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge in Bengaluru, Sri R. Ravi, B.Sc., LL.B., granted bail to Ajith Kumar, who was arrayed as Accused No. 3 in a case involving alleged armed robbery and criminal intimidation. The order in Crl. Misc. No. 6030/2022 pertains to Cr. No. 137/2022 registered by the Yelahanka Police Station for offences under Sections 397 (Robbery, or dacoity, with attempt to cause death or grievous hurt), 504 (Intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace), and 506 (Punishment for criminal intimidation) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

The petitioner, 24-year-old Ajith Kumar, son of K. Ramesh, a resident of Dwarakanagara, Yelahanka, was represented by Advocate Sri. Meenakshi.B.R. The defense sought bail under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C., arguing forcefully that the petitioner was innocent and had been falsely implicated in the case.

Grounds for Bail

The central plank of the petitioner’s argument rested on the nature of the alleged offences. His counsel highlighted that the offences under Sections 397, 504, and 506 of the IPC, while serious, are not punishable with death or imprisonment for life. This distinction is often crucial in bail applications, as courts typically apply more lenient standards when the maximum sentence is below life imprisonment or the death penalty.

Furthermore, the petitioner claimed to be the sole breadwinning member of his family, which includes old aged parents. He asserted his status as a law-abiding citizen and, importantly, stressed his permanent residency in Bengaluru, using his Aadhar card as proof of address. This fact, the defense argued, negated the prosecution’s apprehension that he might abscond or delay the proceedings. The petitioner also expressed readiness to abide by any conditions imposed by the court and to offer surety for his release. He contended that his name did not explicitly appear in either the First Information Report (FIR) or the initial complaint, suggesting he was an afterthought in the investigation.

Prosecution’s Opposition and Case Details

The learned Public Prosecutor representing the State by Yelahanka P.S. filed objections, opposing the bail application. The prosecution contended that the grounds urged by the petitioner were unsatisfactory and that the matter was still under investigation. The core objection centered on the fear that granting bail at this stage would allow the petitioner to abscond and tamper with the prosecution witnesses, which would inevitably hamper the subsequent trial.

The alleged incident occurred on May 28, 2022, around 10:30 PM. As per the FIR and complaint, the petitioner, along with other accused persons, arrived in a Swift car at a location where the complainant and an engineer named Gautam were conducting repair work. The accused allegedly demanded $\text{Rs.5,000}/-$ from the victims. When told they only had $\text{Rs.100}/-$, the petitioner allegedly slapped Gautam, causing an injury on his neck. Following an altercation where Gautam fell down, the accused purportedly took a machine valued at $\text{Rs.25,000}/-$ and cash amounting to $\text{Rs.900}/-$, thereby committing the alleged offences of armed robbery and criminal intimidation.

Court’s Rationale for Granting Bail

Judge R. Ravi carefully considered the arguments and the material on record. In the analysis for Point No. 1, which addressed whether a prima facie case for bail had been made out, the court sided with the petitioner.

The court specifically rejected the prosecution’s apprehension regarding the petitioner absconding or tampering with witnesses. The judicial analysis noted that the petitioner has been in judicial custody since his arrest and that the copy of the Aadhar card presented confirmed his status as a permanent resident of Bengaluru. The court stated that the petitioner’s presence could be “secured easily before the court.”

Crucially, the court reiterated the defense’s argument that the alleged offences under Sections 397, 504, and 506 of the IPC are not punishable with death or life imprisonment. The court noted that the guilt or innocence of the accused would be determined only after a thorough trial. Acknowledging the seriousness of the allegations, the court found that the prosecution’s concerns could be adequately addressed by imposing stringent conditions on the petitioner.

Based on the nature and gravity of the offences, and the fact that the offenses do not attract the highest penalties, the court concluded that the petitioner had indeed made out a prima facie case for conditional bail.

Strict Conditions Imposed

The bail was subsequently allowed, subject to the petitioner executing a personal bond for $\text{Rs.1,00,000}/-$ with one surety for a like sum. The order included nine conditions to ensure the petitioner’s compliance with the investigative process and good conduct:

1. The petitioner shall not hold any threat to the complainant and shall not tamper with any of the prosecution witnesses directly or indirectly.
2. The petitioner shall appear before the I.O. within 30 days from the date of the order and shall cooperate in the investigation or whenever called by the I.O.
3. The petitioner shall mark his attendance once a month, on every 2nd Saturday, until the final report is filed.
4. The petitioner shall not leave the court’s jurisdiction without prior permission.
5. The petitioner shall furnish his residential address proof and that of his surety.
6. The petitioner shall not indulge in similar type of offences in the future.
7. The petitioner shall appear before the sessions court on all hearing dates.
8. The court explicitly warned that failure to obey any of the conditions would result in the automatic cancellation of the bail order.

This conditional release allows the accused to be out of custody while the police conclude their investigation and prepare for the trial, ensuring a balance between the petitioner’s liberty and the interests of justice.