A City Civil and Sessions Court in Bengaluru has rejected the regular bail applications of two youths, Nandan Kumar and Bharath Kumar S, who are accused of attempting to murder a delivery partner working for the quick-commerce platform Zepto. The court, presided over by Sri. T. Govindaiah of the LVI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge (CCH 57), delivered the order on April 8, 2024, emphasizing the gravity of the offence and the ongoing nature of the investigation.

Details of the Brutal Assault in Devara Bisanahalli

The criminal proceedings originated from a complaint lodged by Smt. Mala, the mother of the victim, Mr. Joseph Kumar. According to the prosecution records, Joseph Kumar was employed at a Zepto facility located in the Devara Bisanahalli area. On the morning of March 25, 2024, Joseph had left for work as usual at approximately 11:30 a.m. and was expected to return home by 9:30 p.m.

However, the situation took a violent turn late that night. Around 11:30 p.m., the complainant received an urgent phone call from an individual named Narzal. The caller informed Smt. Mala that her son had been brutally attacked near the Zepto company office. Joseph had sustained a severe wound to his head, allegedly inflicted by a “long” (a traditional lethal machete-like weapon).

Upon reaching the spot, the family found Joseph in a critical state and rushed him to Sakra Hospital for emergency medical intervention. Due to the severity of the head injury and the need for specialized care, he was later shifted to Victoria Hospital. Subsequent inquiries by the family and witnesses pointed toward the involvement of Nandan Kumar (27) and Bharath Kumar S (24), both residents of Devara Bisanahalli.

Arguments for the Petitioners and Prosecution

The petitioners, represented by advocate Sri. Chandra Reddy, approached the court seeking regular bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.). The defense argued that Nandan and Bharath were innocent of the charges and had been falsely implicated by the Bellandur Police. They further contended that the victim, Joseph Kumar, had already been discharged from the hospital, suggesting that the injuries might not have been as severe as portrayed by the prosecution. The defense also highlighted that the petitioners had aged parents to look after and were willing to abide by any conditions imposed by the court.

The Public Prosecutor, however, presented a strong objection to the bail plea. The prosecution argued that the material collected so far prima facie disclosed the direct involvement of the duo in a heinous assault. They expressed serious concerns that if released, the petitioners would likely tamper with the prosecution witnesses, destroy evidence, or abscond from the law. The prosecution emphasized that the offence under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) is punishable with imprisonment for up to 10 years or fine, or both.

The Courts Rationale for Rejecting Bail

In evaluating the case, Judge T. Govindaiah noted that the nature and gravity of the offence played a significant role in the decision-making process. The court highlighted several key factors that weighed against the accused:

1. Severity of the Weapon Used

The allegations involve the use of a “long,” a weapon typically associated with premeditated and lethal intent. A head injury inflicted with such an instrument underscores the potential lethality of the attack, which is the cornerstone of an attempted murder charge under Section 307 of the IPC.

2. Lack of Medical Documentation

The court observed that the petitioners failed to provide the necessary medical certificates to substantiate their claim that the injuries were “simple” in nature. In the absence of evidence showing the victim was out of danger or that the injuries were minor, the court leaned toward the prosecution’s version of a heinous assault.

3. Protection of Witnesses and Investigation

Since the investigation is still in its active phase, the court found merit in the prosecution’s fear regarding witness intimidation. In many cases of violent assault in local neighborhoods, the threat of retaliation can prevent key witnesses from providing truthful testimony. The court noted that releasing the petitioners at this stage could hamper the gathering of evidence.

Point-wise Decision and Final Order

The court formulated two points for determination: whether the petitioners were entitled to bail and the final order. Regarding the first point, the court answered in the negative. The judge concluded that given the “heinous nature” of the crime and the potential for the accused to threaten witnesses or commit similar offences, bail could not be granted.

The court’s final order stated: “The petition filed by the petitioners under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. is hereby dismissed.”

With the dismissal of this bail application, Nandan Kumar and Bharath Kumar will remain in judicial custody as the Bellandur Police continue their investigation and work toward filing a formal charge sheet. The case serves as a stern reminder of the legal consequences of street violence and the use of lethal weapons in the city. Joseph Kumar, the victim, continues his recovery as the legal process against his alleged attackers moves forward in the Bengaluru courts.