Bengaluru, September 4, 2023 – The LXI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City (CCH-62), Sri R. Ravi, rejected the anticipatory bail application filed by Devanna @ Devu @ Devaraju (Accused No. 6), who is implicated in a serious case of dacoity and robbery. The order, pronounced on September 4, 2023, pertains to Crl. Misc. No. 8357/2023, arising from Cr. No. 123/2023 registered at the Madiwala Police Station for offences punishable under Section 395 (Punishment for dacoity) and Section 397 (Robbery, or dacoity, with attempt to cause death or grievous hurt) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
The petitioner, Devanna @ Devu @ Devaraju, S/o Ayyanna Desai, a resident of Yadgir District, had approached the court seeking protection from arrest under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C.
The Allegations of Heinous Crime
The case filed by the Madiwala Police stems from an incident that occurred on June 1, 2023, at approximately 3:00 a.m. The First Information Report (FIR), complaint, and subsequently filed charge sheet allege that the complainant, while walking on a road in front of Dhananjaya Reddy’s house in BTM 1st Stage, Madiwala, and looking at his mobile phone, was accosted by the petitioner and other accused persons.
The accused allegedly questioned the complainant about his area of residence, before brutally assaulting him. The assault involved blows to the complainant’s teeth, eyes, and face, causing grievous injuries. Following the assault, the accused allegedly committed acts of dacoity and robbery by snatching the complainant’s mobile phone and a 10-gram gold chain.
The offences, therefore, squarely fall under Section 395 and Section 397 of the IPC, which are considered heinous crimes by law.
Grounds for Petition and Prosecution’s Stance
The petitioner’s counsel, Sri. Rashtrich Chengappa, argued that his client was innocent, falsely implicated, and had no direct or indirect involvement in the alleged crime. Key grounds raised included:
- No overt act was specifically attributed against the petitioner.
- No recovery of stolen articles was made from his possession.
- The alleged offences are not exclusively punishable with death or imprisonment for life (though Section 395 carries punishment of imprisonment for life or rigorous imprisonment for up to ten years).
- The petitioner claimed to hail from a respectable family, have deep roots in society, no bad antecedents, and was the sole breadwinner for his family.
The learned Public Prosecutor filed strong objections, accompanied by the report of the Investigating Officer (I.O.). The prosecution maintained that the materials placed on record, particularly the charge sheet, prima facie disclosed the involvement of the petitioner in the commission of the alleged heinous offences. The prosecution argued that granting bail at this stage would pose a high risk of the petitioner absconding, threatening, and tampering with the prosecution witnesses, which would severely hamper the trial process.
Judicial Reasoning for Rejection
The court’s decision to reject the anticipatory bail was guided by the gravity of the charges and the specific punishment prescribed by law for the alleged offences.
The court noted that the charge sheet, along with other materials on record, clearly disclosed the involvement of the petitioner and other accused persons in the heinous offences under Section 397 and Section 395 of the IPC. The court highlighted the severity of the charge under Section 395 of the IPC, which carries a potential punishment of imprisonment for life or rigorous imprisonment for up to ten years. This specific finding contradicted the petitioner’s argument that the offence was not punishable with death or imprisonment for life.
Furthermore, the Judge addressed the petitioner’s claim that the filing of the charge sheet constituted a change in circumstances warranting bail. Citing the Supreme Court ruling in Virupaksha Gowda V/s. State of Karnataka (AIR 2017 SC 1685), the court reiterated the principle that:
“Filing of the charge sheet does not in any manner lessen the allegations made by the prosecution. On the contrary filing of the charge sheet establishes that after due investigation the investigating agency having found the materials has placed the charge sheet for trial of the accused and hence it substantiates prima-facie case against the accused.”
Therefore, the court concluded that the filing of the charge sheet, instead of weakening the prosecution’s case, had substantiated the prima facie case against Devanna @ Devu @ Devaraju.
Given the severity of the punishment, the prima facie evidence of the petitioner’s involvement in a heinous crime, the lack of any substantial change in circumstances since the dismissal of an earlier bail petition (Crl. Misc. No. 5400/2023 on June 26, 2023), and the likelihood of the petitioner threatening the complainant and tampering with prosecution witnesses, the court found that the petitioner had not made out a cogent case with sufficient grounds for the grant of anticipatory bail.
Final Order
In view of the findings, the court rejected the anticipatory bail petition. The order was signed and pronounced in open court on September 4, 2023. The rejection means the petitioner remains liable to arrest by the respondent Madiwala Police Station in connection with the dacoity case.