In a significant legal development, the LXIII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge (CCH-64) at Bengaluru, Sri. A.V. Patil, granted regular bail to Asif (Accused No. 1) and Suman (Accused No. 3) in a case involving charges of attempted murder and assault. The order, pronounced on September 2, 2023, in Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 8146/2023, allows the petitioners to be released in connection with RMC Yard Police Station Crime No. 148/2023, registered for offences under Sections $341$ (Wrongful Restraint), $323$ (Voluntarily Causing Hurt), $504$ (Intentional Insult with Intent to Provoke Breach of the Peace), $506$ (Criminal Intimidation), and the serious charge of $307$ (Attempt to Murder), all read with Section $34$ (Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
The petitioners, Asif, aged 23, and Suman, aged 26, represented by Sri. Venkateshappa, Advocate, had filed the petition under Section $439$ of the Cr.P.C. seeking regular bail.
The Background of the Allegations
The case originated from a complaint lodged by Sri. Kemparaju S/o Thomas on August 18, 2023, against five accused persons, including the petitioners. The complaint detailed an incident that occurred the previous day, August 17, 2023, around $10:30 \text{ p.m.}$ near the NPS School.
According to the complainant, he was sitting by the roadside with his friend when Accused No. 2 began shouting loudly. When the complainant questioned Accused No. 2 about his shouting, the accused allegedly responded with verbal abuse and left. Shortly after, Accused No. 2 returned and informed the complainant that Accused No. 1 (petitioner Asif) wanted to speak to him, subsequently handing over the phone.
The situation escalated when, sometime later, Accused No. 1 (Asif), along with Accused No. 3 (petitioner Suman) and Accused No. 4, arrived at the spot on a Deo vehicle. The complaint alleges that they abruptly abused the complainant in “filthy language.” With the intention to kill, Accused No. 2 allegedly caught hold of the complainant, while Accused No. 1 (Asif) assaulted the complainant on his right ear with a Dagger, causing a bleeding injury. Subsequently, all five accused allegedly assaulted him seriously and issued threats of dire consequences. The injured complainant sought treatment at K.C. General Hospital before filing the complaint, leading to the registration of the case.
Arguments for and Against Bail
The defence argued that the petitioners were innocent and falsely implicated, pointing out that the initial complaint and FIR mentioned “three unknown persons.” A key contention raised by the counsel was that the life of the complainant was out of danger and he had been discharged from the hospital, suggesting that the ingredients necessary to attract Section $307$ of the IPC (Attempt to Murder) were not met, especially since the assault was allegedly made on the ear, which was argued not to be a vital part. Furthermore, the petitioners are permanent residents and have been in judicial custody since August 18, 2023, and are the caretakers of their old-age parents.
The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application, asserting that the materials collected during the investigation prima facie disclosed the commission of the alleged offences, necessitating the dismissal of the bail petition.
The Court’s Ruling and Rationale
In its order, the court addressed the seriousness of the charge under Section $307$ of the IPC. While acknowledging that this offence is non-bailable, the court underscored that it is not punishable with death or imprisonment for life.
The judge highlighted a crucial factor supporting the grant of bail: the life of the injured is out of danger. The fact that the injured lodged the complaint after taking treatment and was subsequently discharged from the hospital indicated that the immediate threat to life had passed.
Applying the judicial maxim that “Bail is rule and jail is exception,” the court determined that the involvement of the petitioners is yet to be proven and that the truth would be ascertained during the full course of the trial. The court also considered the duration of the petitioners’ judicial custody since August 18, 2023, and concluded that there was no further need for custodial trial of the petitioners.
The court further noted that continuous detention could lead to the petitioners coming into contact with hardened criminals in jail. Taking into account the gravity of the offences and the punishment prescribed, the court found that releasing the petitioners on bail with stringent conditions would meet the ends of justice. Consequently, Point No. 1 was answered in the affirmative.
Conditions Imposed on the Petitioners
The regular bail petition was allowed, and the petitioners were ordered to be released on bail. Each petitioner must execute a personal bond for $\text{Rs. 70,000/}$ with one surety for the like sum to the satisfaction of the learned IX ACMM, Bengaluru.
The release is subject to the following compulsory conditions:
- Non-Tampering: Petitioners shall not tamper with the prosecution witnesses.
- No Similar Offences: Petitioners shall not commit similar offences.
- Regular Appearance: Petitioners shall appear before the Magistrate Court and Sessions Court regularly as and when called for.
- Identification Proof: Petitioners shall furnish the attested copy of their Aadhaar cards and proof of their permanent address.
This order ensures that while the petitioners are released from immediate detention, their continued cooperation and non-interference with the judicial process are legally mandated.