The LXIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge (CCH-64) in Bengaluru, on September 25, 2023, rejected the regular bail petition filed by Dandapani, Accused No. 2, in a grave 2008 murder case. The petitioner was seeking bail under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. in the split-up case S.C. No. 833/2014, which originated from Crime No. 480/2008 registered by MICO Layout Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 302 (Murder), 201 (Causing disappearance of evidence of offence), and 120(B) (Criminal conspiracy) read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

The court, presided over by Sri. A.V. Patil, denied the bail primarily on the grounds of the petitioner’s history of misusing previous bail liberty, failure to appear in court for an extended period, and the non-disclosure of a prior bail rejection order.

The Grisly Details of the Prosecution’s Case

The murder dates back to September 29, 2008. The prosecution alleges that the deceased, Ganesh, had borrowed a loan from Accused No. 1, promising to marry his sister, a promise he later broke, causing enmity. Furthermore, Ganesh was allegedly abusing and damaging the prestige of Accused No. 1.

Driven by this motive, in the mid-night of September 29, 2008, the accused, including the petitioner Dandapani (Accused No. 2), took Ganesh to an under-construction house (House No. 1054). There, the petitioner and Accused No. 2 allegedly assaulted the deceased, causing him to fall. Accused No. 1 then tied a rope around Ganesh’s neck, strangulated him, and killed him. In a calculated effort to destroy evidence, they allegedly dug a pit inside the house, buried the dead body, covered it with cement, and subsequently rented out the house to others. The crime was uncovered by the police during the investigation of a different dacoity case (Cr. No. 478/2008) against the present petitioner and others in J.P. Nagara Police Station, leading to the discovery of the skull, bones, and clothes of the deceased after digging up the premises.

Petitioner’s Grounds for Seeking Bail

Dandapani, S/o Late. Kannan, argued that he was falsely implicated, claiming he did not know the deceased or the co-accused. He denied any involvement in the assault or murder, placing the major role on Accused No. 1.

His primary legal argument for bail rested on the principle of parity, noting that co-accused Nos. 1, 4, and 5 had already been enlarged on bail, and Accused No. 1 had even been acquitted in a related case (S.C. No. 500/2009). The petitioner explained his long absence from court—which led to the case being split-up into S.C. No. 833/2014—was due to a “lack of knowledge” of the case status, inability to contact his previous counsel, and being under home quarantine for Covid-19. He emphasized that he is the sole earning member of his family and was arrested on January 6, 2023, after a Non-Bailable Warrant (NBW) was executed.

Judicial Analysis and Rejection of the Plea

The court carefully considered the arguments but found the petitioner’s conduct to be the determining factor against granting bail. Justice Patil noted the following crucial points:

1. Misuse of Previous Bail and Bail Jumping: The record clearly indicated that the petitioner had been granted bail previously in S.C. No. 500/2009 but subsequently failed to appear in court. This led to the case being split up and a proclamation issued, followed by an NBW. The petitioner’s presence was only secured on January 6, 2023, after a significant lapse of time. The court highlighted that the petitioner’s conduct constituted a clear violation of the bail bond conditions, resulting in the forfeiture of the bail bond and the registration of a separate criminal miscellaneous case (Cri. Misc. No. 4458/2014). The court remarked that since the bail granted earlier was “misused and violated the bail bond conditions,” it was not safe to re-grant bail.

2. Non-Disclosure of Prior Rejection: The court established that the petitioner had previously filed a bail application in Crl. Mis. No. 979/2023 after his arrest, which was rejected on merits. The petitioner failed to disclose this fact in the current application, which the court viewed seriously as a critical omission in seeking discretionary relief. Furthermore, there were no “changed circumstances” since the rejection of the previous bail application to justify a different decision.

3. Gravity of the Offence: The offences alleged—murder and destruction of evidence—are heinous and punishable with death or life imprisonment. The court determined that considering the facts, the nature and gravity of the accusation, and the severity of the potential punishment, granting bail was not appropriate.

For the aforementioned reasons, the LXIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge found it unfit to exercise discretion in favour of the petitioner, answering Point No. 1 in the negative and formally rejecting the regular bail petition filed by Dandapani.