Bengaluru, August 29, 2023 – The LVI Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH 57), dismissed the anticipatory bail petition filed by Deepak C. @ Deepu in connection with a case involving a violent assault outside a bar, emphasizing the gravity of the injuries and the accused’s non-cooperation with the ongoing investigation.

The petitioner, Deepak C. @ Deepu, aged about 24 years, had approached the court under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) seeking protection from arrest in Cr. No. 164/2023 of Mahalakshmipuram Police Station. The charges against him include serious offences punishable under Sections 326 (Voluntarily causing grievous hurt by dangerous weapons or means), 506 (Criminal intimidation), and 504 (Intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

The Incident: A Late-Night Bar Assault

The prosecution papers detailed a violent confrontation that took place in the early hours of July 13, 2023. According to the complaint, the incident began late on July 12, 2023, around 11:00 PM, when the complainant and his friends, Ajith and Swamy, went to Kinnar Bar.

The assault occurred after they left the bar at approximately 12:30 AM on July 13, 2023. The petitioner, Deepak C. @ Deepu, along with his friends, allegedly confronted the complainant’s group. The accused are alleged to have started abusing the victims in filthy language and assaulting them using a variety of deadly weapons, including a stone, a bottle, and a machete.

The complaint highlighted the severity of the injuries. Despite the complainant shouting that he had sustained a bleeding injury on his head, the assault continued. The crucial allegation was that when the accused attempted to strike the complainant with a machete, the complainant managed to evade the blow, but the impact landed on his right hand, resulting in a fracture of the right hand bone. Furthermore, another victim, Ajith, was also assaulted with a bottle on his face. The attack concluded with the petitioner and his associates threatening the victims with dire consequences as the victims attempted to escape.

Petitioner’s Plea for Anticipatory Bail

The petitioner’s counsel, Sri. Harish D., sought anticipatory bail on several grounds. Deepak C. @ Deepu asserted his innocence and claimed he had a tenable defense. He argued that there was an inordinate delay in lodging the complaint. A central point of his argument was that the injured party had not suffered any “vital injuries.” He stressed that the offences alleged are not punishable with death or life imprisonment and that he belonged to a respectable family with no bad antecedents, making him neither a habitual offender nor likely to abscond. He affirmed his willingness to abide by all conditions, including furnishing surety.

Prosecution’s Opposition

The prosecution strongly opposed the petition, stating that the papers prima facie disclosed the petitioner’s direct involvement in the grievous assault. The Public Prosecutor argued that if bail were granted, the petitioner would not cooperate with the investigation and trial. The prosecution expressed a strong fear that he would abscond from the jurisdiction, tamper with witnesses and evidence, and potentially commit similar offences.

Court’s Reasoning and Rejection

After hearing arguments from both sides, the LVI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Sri. T.Govindaiah, answered the point for determination—whether the petitioner was entitled to anticipatory bail—in the Negative.

The court’s decision was based on a combination of factors, primarily the nature of the crime and the conduct of the accused post-incident:

• Gravity of the Offence: The judge noted the seriousness of the charges, particularly Section 326 of the IPC, which involves voluntarily causing grievous hurt using a machete—a dangerous and deadly weapon. The assault led to a broken bone in the complainant’s right hand, directly refuting the petitioner’s claim that the injured had not suffered any vital injuries.
• Non-Cooperation and Absconding: The court placed significant weight on the fact that the petitioner and other accused persons had not been secured by the police and had been absconding since the date of the incident. The judge remarked, “If really the accused innocent about the offence. The accused has to co-operate the IO by surrendering himself before the police station.” The continued failure of the petitioner to cooperate was viewed as a strong indicator that he would not adhere to bail conditions.
• Risk to Investigation: The court concluded that at this preliminary stage of the investigation, granting anticipatory bail would allow the accused to abscond from the jurisdiction and potentially hinder the process of investigation and trial.

Considering the grave nature and gravity of the offences and the petitioner’s failure to cooperate with the law enforcement authorities, the court deemed him ineligible for the anticipatory bail relief claimed.

Consequently, the petition filed by Deepak C. @ Deepu under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. was dismissed, leaving him open to immediate arrest by the Investigating Officer.