In a recent order that reiterates the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence, “Bail is a rule and jail is an exception,” the LII Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bangalore (CCH-53), Sri. B.G. Pramoda, allowed the bail application of Appu N., the petitioner/Accused No. 1, who was in judicial custody for an alleged offence under Section 397 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which deals with robbery or dacoity with an attempt to cause death or grievous hurt.

The order, passed on August 22, 2023, pertains to Crl.Misc.No. 8091/2023, arising from Crime No. 221/2023 registered at Peenya police station. The court’s decision was significantly influenced by the fact that the petitioner was no longer required for custodial interrogation, and co-accused in the same crime had already been granted bail.

Case Details and Allegations

The case originated from an FIR registered against unknown persons following information provided by the informant, Ramesh Kumar C.S. The incident allegedly occurred on June 25, 2023, at approximately 1:30 a.m., when the informant was riding a TVS towards N.T.T.F. The accused, who arrived in an auto-rickshaw, allegedly stopped the informant and demanded money and a phone. When the informant refused, the accused reportedly assaulted him with an iron rod and robbed a mobile phone before fleeing the scene.

The respondent police subsequently arrested the petitioner, Appu N., on August 8, 2023, and produced him before the learned Magistrate, where he was remanded to judicial custody and shown as Accused No. 1 in the remand application.

Arguments for and Against Bail

Petitioner’s Submissions

The petitioner’s counsel, Sri. Maheshkumar G., argued that Appu N. was innocent and had been falsely implicated. Key points raised in the petition included:

1. False Implication: The police falsely implicated him in the crime, which was initially registered against unknown persons.
2. Lack of Bad Antecedents: The petitioner claimed to hail from a respectable family with no prior bad antecedents or previous convictions.
3. Permanent Residence: He asserted that he is a permanent resident of the Bengaluru address mentioned, thereby guaranteeing his availability for trial.
4. Willingness to Comply: The petitioner expressed his readiness to abide by any terms and conditions imposed by the court and furnish suitable surety.

Prosecution’s Opposition

The Learned Public Prosecutor filed objections, staunchly opposing the grant of bail. The opposition was based on the following contentions, supported by the Investigating Officer’s report:

1. Grave Nature of Offence: The alleged offence under Section 397 IPC is grave in nature and detrimental to society.
2. Habitual Offender Allegation: The prosecution alleged that Accused No. 1 is a habitual offender involved in many other similar offences.
3. Investigation Stage: The case was still at the investigation stage.
4. Risk of Misconduct: The petitioner might abscond, commit similar offences in the future, destroy evidence, or threaten the informant and other prosecution witnesses if enlarged on bail.
5. Non-Permanent Resident: The prosecution disputed the petitioner’s claim of being a permanent resident of Bengaluru.

Court’s Rationale and Findings

The court, after hearing arguments and reviewing the documents, addressed the points of consideration. The finding on Point No. 1—whether the bail petition deserved to be allowed—was answered in the Affirmative.

The court’s decision was guided by several legal and factual observations:

1. No FIR Mention: Crucially, the court noted that the petitioner’s name was not mentioned either in the FIR or the complaint, which were registered against unknown persons. His name only surfaced in the remand application as Accused No. 1.
2. Custodial Interrogation Not Required: The Investigating Officer’s report itself indicated that the accused were already produced before the Magistrate because they were not required for further investigation of the case. The police had already conducted the mahazar (spot inspection) and seized the auto-rickshaw, iron rod, and knife allegedly used in the offence, based on the say of Accused No. 1 and 2. Since custodial interrogation was complete, the necessity for continued judicial custody was greatly reduced.
3. Nature of Punishment: The offence alleged against the petitioner is not exclusively punishable with death or imprisonment for life, placing it within the category where bail is the general rule, a doctrine established by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Balachandh @ Baliya (AIR 1977 SC 2447).
4. Grounds of Parity: A significant factor was the fact that Accused No. 2 and 4 in the same crime, against whom similar offences were alleged, had already been granted bail by the same court in Crl.Misc.No. 7795/2023 and 7950/23. The petitioner was, therefore, entitled to bail on the ground of parity.
5. Securing Presence: The court observed that the petitioner is a permanent resident of Bengaluru and resides within the jurisdiction, making the chances of absconding remote. His presence could be secured by imposing suitable conditions, thereby addressing the prosecution’s apprehension of him fleeing from justice.

Bail Order and Conditions

In light of these findings, the court allowed the petition under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. The petitioner/Accused No. 1 was ordered to be released on bail, subject to furnishing a personal bond for Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Only) and one surety for the like sum to the satisfaction of the Learned Magistrate.

The release was subject to the following strict conditions imposed to safeguard the integrity of the investigation and trial:

1. The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when called for and co-operate with the investigation.
2. The petitioner shall appear before the court regularly on all hearing dates during the trial.
3. The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case to dissuade them from disclosing such facts or hamper with the evidence.
4. The petitioner shall not commit an offence of a similar nature or any other offence in the future.
5. The petitioner shall furnish his correct address proof before the trial court.
6. The petitioner shall not leave India without the previous permission of the court.

The court explicitly warned that the violation of any of these conditions would entitle the cancellation of the bail. The ruling underscores the judiciary’s commitment to protecting the constitutional right to life and liberty under Article 21, especially when the need for pre-trial incarceration has diminished.