The Principal City Civil and Sessions Court in Bengaluru has granted regular bail to Manikanta alias Mutta, who was accused of involvement in a planned dacoity dating back to 2018. The order, delivered by Principal City Civil and Sessions Judge Shri Muralidhara Pai B on April 10, 2024, concludes a period of re-detention for the petitioner following a prior failure to comply with bail conditions.

The case, registered as Crime No. 284/2018 at the Koramangala Police Station, initially saw the arrest of Manikanta and several others under Sections 399 and 402 of the Indian Penal Code IPC. These sections pertain to making preparations to commit dacoity and assembling for the purpose of committing dacoity.

Case Background and Legal Journey

The legal battle began on August 26, 2018, when a team led by Sri Siddappa, the Police Sub-Inspector of Koramangala Police Station, conducted a raid. According to the prosecution’s report, Manikanta and three others were apprehended during the operation and produced before the Station House Officer. Following the completion of the investigation, the police filed a charge sheet, and the matter was registered as C.C. No. 3858/2019.

Manikanta, who is arrayed as Accused No. 3, was previously granted bail in the earlier stages of the case. However, the court records indicate that he failed to appear for subsequent proceedings, leading to the issuance of a Non-Bailable Warrant NBW. On September 12, 2023, the warrant was executed, and the petitioner was taken back into custody. After spending several months behind bars, Manikanta moved a new petition under Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code CrPC seeking his release.

Arguments for and Against Bail

The petitioner’s counsel, Sri N. Gopal, presented several grounds for the release of his client. The defense argued that the petitioner had faced difficulties during the COVID-19 pandemic and suggested that there were issues regarding improper identity and delays in the filing of the charge sheet. The defense also pointed out that the maximum imprisonment prescribed for the alleged offenses was relatively low and that no actual damages had been caused during the incident in 2018.

Critically, the petitioner expressed his readiness to furnish fresh sureties and pledged to abide by any stringent conditions imposed by the court to ensure his future attendance during the trial.

On the other hand, the prosecution, represented by Public Prosecutor Sri Chinnavenkataravanappa, filed a formal objection to the petition. The prosecution highlighted the petitioner’s past conduct, specifically his failure to comply with previous bail conditions, which had led to his re-arrest. They argued that his release might once again delay the trial process, which is currently pending on the file of the XXXIX ACMM Court.

The Court Verdict

In his analysis, Judge Muralidhara Pai B noted that while the court did not find substantial merit in the petitioner’s arguments regarding identity or the length of the charge sheet delay, the overall circumstances favored the grant of bail. The court took into account the fact that the incident occurred over five years ago and that the trial against other co-accused was already progressing.

The judge observed that further detention was not necessary, provided the petitioner was subjected to financial penalties and strict reporting requirements. The court emphasized that the imposition of stringent conditions would be sufficient to secure the petitioner’s presence and protect the interests of the prosecution.

Terms of the Bail Order

The court allowed the petition and ordered the release of Manikanta alias Mutta subject to the following conditions:

1. The petitioner must execute a personal bond for 50,000 Rupees along with one surety of the like sum.
2. As a penalty for his previous non-compliance, the petitioner is required to deposit 5,000 Rupees in the trial court as a fine.
3. He is strictly prohibited from luring or threatening any prosecution witnesses.
4. The petitioner must furnish his current address, mobile number, and email ID with supporting documentation to the trial court.
5. He is forbidden from changing his place of residence without obtaining prior permission from the court.
6. The surety provided must submit valid address proof at the time of executing the bail bonds.

This ruling provides Manikanta with a final opportunity to clear his legal standing while the 2018 attempted dacoity case reaches its conclusion in the Bengaluru magistrate court.