Bengaluru Court Rejects Bail for Dilip J and Ayush H D in Kodigehalli Murder Case Citing Witness Safety and Gravity of Offence

The LX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge in Bengaluru (CCH-61) has rejected the bail applications of two accused, Dilip J (A-5) and Ayush H D (A-6), in connection with a murder case registered at the Kodigehalli Police Station. The order, pronounced by Sri Narashimsa M.V. on September 7, 2023, dismissed the petition filed under Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.).

The petitioners, both young men aged 18 and 19 respectively, were seeking bail in Crime No. 220/2023, which initially included sections like 323 (Voluntarily causing hurt) and 324 (Voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means) of the IPC, but was subsequently upgraded to the heinous charge of Section 302 (Murder) of the IPC, along with Sections 143 (Unlawful assembly), 307 (Attempt to murder), 323, 504 (Intentional insult) read with Section 149 (Every member of unlawful assembly guilty of offence committed).

Evolution of Charges and Case Background

The case stems from an incident that occurred on August 12, 2023, at approximately 5:00 PM. According to the complaint lodged by Kemparaju, the deceased, identified as Chandrashekar, was going in a car with his wife when they were accosted near Ambedkar Bhavan, Canara Bank Layout Government Hospital. Four to five unknown persons allegedly picked up a quarrel and brutally assaulted Chandrashekar with deadly weapons on his head and face, causing severe bleeding injuries.

Chandrashekar was initially rushed to Medstar Hospital and subsequently shifted to NIMHANS. Unfortunately, due to the failure of treatment, the injured succumbed to his injuries.

The case charges evolved significantly as the investigation progressed:

• Initial Registration: Sections 323 and 324 read with Section 34 of IPC.
• Initial Investigation: Sections 307, 323, 324, 504 read with Section 34 of IPC were added.
• After Death: The final and most severe sections of 143, 302 (Murder), 307, 323, 504 read with Section 149 of IPC were inserted.

The petitioners, Dilip J and Ayush H D, were arrested and produced before the Magistrate on August 15, 2023, and were subsequently remanded to judicial custody after a period of police custody until August 21, 2023, along with Accused Nos. 1 and 2, who were arrested later.

Arguments Presented by the Accused and Prosecution

Petitioners’ Grounds for Bail:

Represented by Sri R – Advocate, the petitioners argued they were innocent and falsely implicated, noting that if they had truly committed the offence, they would have absconded. The defence suggested that the deceased had cheated many persons, leading to the assault, but maintained that the petitioners did not intend to kill him. They highlighted that both are students and their continued detention would jeopardize their careers. Furthermore, they claimed to be the only sons and bread earners for their old-aged parents and were ready to furnish surety.

Prosecution’s Opposition:

The Learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the application, reiterating the severity and heinous nature of the offence. The prosecution argued that if the accused were released on bail, there was a high possibility of them absconding, threatening witnesses, and destructing evidence.

Court’s Reasoning for Denying Bail

The LX Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge carefully considered the facts and the gravity of the allegations.

1. Witness Safety and Tampering:

The Court noted that one individual named Goutham was present at the spot and was himself injured, making him a crucial eyewitness to the assault on Chandrashekar. The Court expressed a clear opinion that if A-5 and A-6 were enlarged on bail, “there is every possibility of life threat to Sri Goutham/ injured as well, as he is an eyewitness to the incident.”

2. Investigation Status:

Despite the police custody period being over, the Court rejected the contention that the investigation was fully completed. The judge noted that the “mere completion of period of police custody does not mean that the investigation has been completed.” Furthermore, the Court stated that conducting a Test Identification Parade may also be necessary, suggesting the investigation required further stages where the presence and non-interference of the accused were vital.

3. Gravity of Offence:

The Court emphasized the nature and gravity of the injury, the fact that the assault took place in broad daylight, and that the offence committed was murder, punishable under Section 302 of the IPC. This severity outweighed the petitioners’ arguments, including their student status. The Court made it clear that while A-5 and A-6 are students, the gravity of the offence alleged cannot be overlooked.

4. No Anticipatory Bail:

It is important to note that although the heading of the order mentions Section 439 (Post-arrest bail), the grounds urged by the petitioner were similar to those for anticipatory bail, however, the Court’s ruling focused on the facts presented post-arrest, as the order sheet confirmed the petitioners were already in custody. The denial of bail on grounds of witness tampering and the stage of the investigation is standard in serious cases like murder.

Based on these considerations—the life threat posed to the eyewitness, the incomplete investigation, and the heinous nature of the crime—the Court answered the point for consideration in the Negative.

Final Verdict

The bail application filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. by Petitioner/Accused Nos. 5 and 6, Dilip J and Ayush H D, in Kodigehalli P. S. crime No. 220/2023, was rejected.