Bengaluru Court Rejects Second Bail Plea of Amuliya Gogai for Attempted Murder Accused: Cites Flight Risk and Trial Nearing Conclusion

In a ruling that underscores the judiciary’s caution against potential flight risks and witness tampering, the LX Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-61), Sri Narashimsa M.V., has rejected the second bail application filed by an accused facing charges of attempted murder under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

The petitioner, Amuliya Gogai (A-1), sought bail under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. in connection with Yelahanka New Town Police Station Crime No. 236/2021 (S.C. No. 1555/2021). The rejection, dated September 2, 2023, comes despite the petitioner arguing that the trial had already commenced and that a key material witness had been dropped.

Background of the Heinous Offence

The incident leading to the charge sheet occurred on October 13, 2021, at approximately 9:30 PM. The prosecution’s case, as detailed in the First Information Report (FIR) and the subsequent charge sheet, alleges that the petitioner, Amuliya Gogai, picked up a quarrel with the complainant over a trivial matter—the usage of slippers in a bathroom.

The argument escalated dramatically, with the petitioner allegedly assaulting the complainant with a chopper on his head. The action was registered for the offense punishable under Section 307 IPC, which deals with acts committed with the intention or knowledge and under circumstances that, if death were caused, it would amount to murder. The severity of the weapon used and the targeted area of the body (the head) strongly support the application of the attempted murder charge.

The Grounds for the Second Bail Application

The petitioner, who has been in judicial custody since his arrest, approached the Sessions Court for the second time, as his first bail application, Crl. Misc No. 9130/2021, was previously rejected on November 12, 2021. The charge sheet in the case was filed on November 15, 2021.

In the current petition, Crl.Misc.No. 7955/2023, the key grounds urged were:

Custody Status: The petitioner has been in custody since the date of his arrest.
Trial Commencement: The trial has commenced, and further custodial interrogation is no longer required.
Witness Status: The material witness, CW-1, has been dropped, negating the possibility of tampering with this particular witness.
Willingness to Abide by Conditions: The petitioner expressed his readiness to offer surety for his due appearance before the court.

The defense also implicitly argued against the principle of Res Judicata in bail matters, highlighting that the filing of the charge sheet and the commencement of the trial constituted a change in circumstances since the first application was rejected.

Prosecution’s Strong Opposition

The Learned Public Prosecutor filed robust objections, reiterating the seriousness and heinous nature of the offense. The prosecution expressed strong apprehension that if the accused were released on bail, there was an every possibility of him absconding from the jurisdiction of the Court.

Furthermore, the prosecution argued that the release would lead to the threatening of witnesses and the destruction of evidence, thereby jeopardizing the smooth conclusion of the trial. The gravity of the offense was emphasized as a primary reason why the accused does not deserve to be enlarged on bail.

The Court’s Rationale for Rejection

The Sessions Judge considered the material placed on record, including the FIR, the charge sheet, and the copy of the previous rejection order. The court observed that the present application was filed after the filing of the charge sheet and critically noted that the trial is at the fag end, with several witnesses having already been examined.

Two key factors ultimately guided the court’s decision:

1. Flight Risk (Permanent Address Outside Jurisdiction): The court noted that while the petitioner currently resides in Bengaluru, his Permanent Address is in Dhuponi Bhargoun Village, Tinsukiya District, Assam State. Considering the trial’s advanced stage, the court concluded that the petitioner’s ties to a far-off state make him a significant flight risk. If the accused were to abscond, the entire judicial process would come to a standstill, leading to further delays in justice.

2. Possibility of Witness Tampering: Despite the defense’s claim that a key witness (CW-1) had been dropped, the court acknowledged the possibility of threatening of other witnesses as well. In a case involving a violent crime like attempted murder, the need to protect the remaining prosecution witnesses is paramount.

The court explicitly stated that the presence of the accused is necessary for the trial’s final stages, including identification by the Investigating Officer and other material witnesses. The judge thus concluded that the interests of justice and the need to ensure an uninterrupted conclusion of the trial outweighed the personal liberty claim of the accused at this juncture.

By answering the point of consideration in the Negative, the LX Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge rejected the bail application, ensuring that the accused remains in judicial custody while the trial in S.C. No. 1555/2021 moves towards its final judgment.