In a significant legal development at the Bengaluru City Civil and Sessions Court, the LXIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Sri A.V. Patil, has granted regular bail to a 23-year-old man, Guruprasad alias Jigijikka. The petitioner was facing charges related to the preparation for dacoity and illegal possession of arms under the Indian Penal Code and the Arms Act. The order, delivered on June 29, 2022, emphasizes the principles of personal liberty and the parity of treatment among co-accused when investigation requirements have been met.

Background of the Case

The case originated from an incident on July 11, 2021. According to the prosecution’s narrative, the Kamakshipalya Police intercepted a group of individuals who were allegedly armed with deadly weapons, including iron longs and machhus. The police contended that the group, which included Guruprasad, was making active preparations to commit dacoity and robbery, targeting members of the public for money and gold ornaments.

Following the registration of Crime No. 180/2021, the petitioner, Guruprasad alias Jigijikka, a resident of Sunkadakatte, Bengaluru, was arrested on July 14, 2021. Since his arrest, he had remained in judicial custody for over ten months. The investigating officer eventually filed a charge sheet (CC No. 25741/2021) invoking Sections 399 (Making preparation to commit dacoity) and 402 (Assembling for purpose of committing dacoity) of the Indian Penal Code, along with Section 25-1(B)(b) of the Arms Act, 1959.

Arguments Presented by the Defense

Advocate Sri H. Nagendra, appearing for Guruprasad, argued that the petitioner was innocent and had been falsely implicated in the matter. The defense highlighted several critical points to justify the grant of bail:

1. Lack of Specific Recovery: The defense pointed out that while the police claimed to have seized weapons from accused numbers 1 to 3 at the spot, there was no recovery of firearms such as guns, rifles, or pistols from the petitioner that would warrant a strict application of the Arms Act.
2. Completion of Investigation: Since the charge sheet had already been filed, the defense argued that the petitioner’s continued detention was unnecessary as the custodial interrogation phase was over.
3. Principle of Parity: It was brought to the court’s attention that other co-accused in the same case (Accused Nos. 1, 2, and 3) had already been enlarged on bail by the court in previous applications.
4. Duration of Custody: The petitioner had already spent more than ten and a half months in jail for offences that do not carry the death penalty or life imprisonment.

Prosecution’s Opposition

The Public Prosecutor strongly opposed the bail application, filing a formal statement of objections. The state argued that Guruprasad was a habitual offender and that the filing of the charge sheet itself served as prima facie evidence of his involvement in the alleged crimes. The prosecution also noted that a previous bail application (Crl. Misc. No. 4527/2022) filed by the petitioner had been rejected, suggesting that the current petition should meet the same fate.

Court’s Observations and Ruling

Judge A.V. Patil, after hearing both sides and perusing the case diary, found merit in the petitioner’s application. The court addressed the previous rejection of the bail application, noting it was dismissed on a technical ground regarding the non-production of specific documents, which did not bar the consideration of the current petition on its merits.

The court observed that the offences alleged, while serious, were not punishable by death or life imprisonment. Crucially, the court noted that since the investigation was complete and the charge sheet was filed, the physical presence of the petitioner in custody was no longer required for the purpose of the probe.

In a notable observation regarding the rehabilitation of young offenders, the Judge stated that the continuous detention of the petitioner behind bars might lead to a circumstance where he could come into contact with hardened criminals in jail. The court further applied the principle of parity, noting that since the primary accused individuals had already been released on bail, the petitioner was entitled to the same relief.

Terms of the Bail

The court allowed the petition under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C., ordering the release of Guruprasad alias Jigijikka subject to the following conditions:

• The execution of a personal bond for Rs. 75,000.
• The provision of two sureties for the like sum to the satisfaction of the 39th ACMM, Bengaluru.
• A mandatory requirement for the petitioner to appear before the court regularly for all proceedings.
• The submission of an attested copy of the petitioner’s Aadhaar card for identification purposes.

This order underscores the judiciary’s stance on balancing the state’s interest in prosecution with the individual’s right to liberty, especially in cases where the investigation is finalized and trial is yet to commence.