The LX Additional City Civil and Sessions Court in Bengaluru has granted anticipatory bail to Kishore Chawan S, the second accused in a case involving allegations of assault, kidnapping, and robbery. The ruling, delivered by Judge Sri Narashimsa M.V., comes amid a backdrop of a complicated marital dispute, which the court noted as a significant factor in the potential for false implication. The petitioner, a 24-year-old resident of Moodlapalya, was facing arrest by the Chandra Layout Police for offences punishable under various sections of the Indian Penal Code.
The case originated from a complaint filed by Smt. Uma Bai, whose son, Hemanth Pawar, has been embroiled in a strained marriage with Shwetha Bai for the past seven years. According to the prosecution’s narrative, the marital discord reached a boiling point when Shwetha Bai left her matrimonial home to live with her parents. Following a legal notice sent by Hemanth Pawar, the situation allegedly turned violent.
The complainant alleged that on the night of September 7, 2023, while Hemanth Pawar was at Prakruthi Hotel, he was ambushed by his brother-in-law Kishore Chawan and a group of 10 to 15 friends. The prosecution claimed that the group forcibly abducted Hemanth in an auto-rickshaw to a secluded location, robbed him of Rs 10,000 in cash, and coerced him into consuming alcohol. The assault allegedly continued at a second location where Hemanth was beaten with clubs and stones, resulting in bleeding injuries. He was eventually left at Kengute Road, from where he contacted his mother and was subsequently treated at K.C. General Hospital.
Representing Kishore Chawan, the defense counsel argued that the petitioner was entirely innocent and had been dragged into the criminal case solely because of his relationship with the primary accused and the ongoing family feud. The defense highlighted that the petitioner was not present at the scene of the alleged crime and pointed toward a significant discrepancy in the timing of the legal action. Specifically, they noted that while the incident supposedly occurred on September 7, the formal complaint was not lodged until September 9, representing a two-day unexplained delay.
The defense further contended that the incident took place in a busy area near a popular hotel where public witnesses would naturally be present, yet no independent corroboration was provided. They argued that if a genuine assault had occurred, the victim or the hospital would have alerted the police immediately through a Medico-Legal Case (MLC) registry.
The Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application, stating that the accused had been absconding since the date of the incident. The state expressed concern that if granted anticipatory bail, the petitioner might threaten witnesses or destroy evidence collected by the investigating team.
In his judicial analysis, Judge Narashimsa M.V. scrutinized the timeline and the nature of the allegations. The court observed that whenever a patient is treated for assault in a government hospital like K.C. General, an MLC is mandatory, and the doctor is obligated to inform the jurisdictional police. The court found it noteworthy that there was a lack of immediate police notification despite the severity of the alleged crimes.
The court also took into account the admitted marital dispute between the injured party and the petitioner’s sister. The judge remarked that considering the existing family tensions and the delay in filing the first information report, the possibility of false implication could not be ruled out at this stage of the investigation. The court determined that the apprehension of the prosecution regarding witness tampering could be effectively managed by imposing strict legal conditions rather than through custodial detention.
In the final order, the court allowed the anticipatory bail application. Kishore Chawan S was directed to be released on bail in the event of his arrest upon executing a personal bond of Rs 50,000 with one surety. The court imposed several conditions, including a mandate for the petitioner to appear before the investigating officer on or before April 25, 2024, to cooperate with the probe. Additionally, the petitioner is prohibited from tampering with prosecution witnesses or hindering the investigation in any manner and must attend all scheduled court hearings before the Magistrate.