The LXIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge in Bengaluru has granted regular bail to two men, Karthik and Ravindra, who were arrested in connection with a mid-night kidnapping and extortion case in Bellandur. The court, presided over by Judge A.V. Patil, observed that there was a significant delay in filing the complaint and that the names of the accused were not initially mentioned in the First Information Report.

The petitioners, 29-year-old Karthik and 27-year-old Ravindra, were booked under Section 364(A) read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Section 364(A) pertains to kidnapping for ransom, a serious non-bailable offence. However, the court decided in favor of the petitioners after considering the circumstances surrounding their arrest and the nature of the evidence currently on record.

Background of the Alleged Incident

The case was initiated following a complaint lodged by Mr. Mohammed Zayd on March 11, 2024, at the Bellandur Police Station. According to the complainant, the incident occurred on the night of March 8, 2024. Zayd stated that his friend, Tushar Goyal, had sent him a parcel from Koramangala. To receive this parcel, Zayd went to a local tea point near Green Glen Layout around midnight.

The delivery was reportedly being handled by a third individual, Shivaji Suresh Sajjanar, who is also an accused in the case. While Zayd was speaking with the delivery person, two men allegedly approached him from behind, forcibly bundled him onto a scooter, and transported him to BTM Layout. The complainant alleged that the kidnappers then forced him to transfer Rs. 50,000 via Google Pay before releasing him.

The Bengaluru Police tracked the digital footprint of the Google Pay transaction, which eventually led them to Karthik and Ravindra. They were arrested on March 24, 2024, and had been in judicial custody since then.

Arguments for Bail

The legal counsel for the petitioners, Sri. Parthasarathy M., argued that his clients were innocent and total strangers to the alleged incident. He pointed out several procedural gaps, most notably that the incident allegedly took place on March 8, but the complaint was only filed three days later on March 11.

The defense further argued that since the FIR was filed against “unknown persons,” the identification of Karthik and Ravindra remained a matter of trial. They emphasized that no Test Identification Parade (TIP) had been conducted to allow the complainant to identify the suspects formally. Furthermore, the defense highlighted that both men were the sole breadwinners for their respective families and were permanent residents of Bengaluru, posing no flight risk.

The Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application, stating that the Google Pay transaction provided prima facie evidence of their involvement and that the gravity of the kidnapping charge warranted continued detention.

Court’s Observations and Decision

In his ruling, Judge A.V. Patil noted the “inordinate delay” in filing the complaint. He observed that the names of the petitioners were missing from the initial FIR and that their involvement remains a matter that must be proven during the trial.

The judge reiterated the legal principle that “bail is the rule and jail is the exception.” He expressed concern that continued detention might expose the young petitioners to hardened criminals within the prison system. The court noted that while Section 364(A) is serious, it does not carry a mandatory death sentence in all circumstances, and the apprehension of the prosecution could be managed through strict conditions.

Conditions of the Bail Order

The court allowed the bail petition and ordered the release of Karthik and Ravindra upon the execution of a personal bond of Rs. 80,000 each, along with one surety of the same amount. The following conditions were imposed:

1. The petitioners must not tamper with prosecution witnesses or evidence.
2. They are strictly prohibited from committing similar offences in the future.
3. They must appear before the Magistrate and Sessions Court regularly as required.
4. They must furnish an attested copy of their Aadhaar cards and proof of their permanent address.

The court clarified that this order for regular bail does not limit or restrict the rights of the police to continue their investigation into the charges against the petitioners. With the granting of bail, the focus now shifts to the upcoming trial where the digital evidence of the money transfer will likely be a central point of contention.