BENGALURU – A City Civil and Sessions Court in Bengaluru has granted anticipatory bail to 36-year-old P. Guruprasad in connection with a case involving the vandalism of a private vehicle and the destruction of property. The court observed that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner was not necessary, given that the prime accused in the case had already been granted bail and the evidence was primarily based on CCTV footage and physical recovery.
The order was passed by Sri S. Nataraj, the LXVI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge (CCH-67), on June 22, 2022, just seven days after the petition was presented. The ruling provides significant relief to Guruprasad, who was named as Accused No. 3 during the course of the police investigation.
Background of the Vandalism Incident
The case originated from a complaint lodged by a resident named Maruthi G. at the Kamakshipalya Police Station. According to the prosecution, the incident occurred on the night of June 5, 2022. The complainant had parked his Hyundai Verna vehicle near his residence at approximately 11:30 p.m.
Upon waking up the following morning, Maruthi discovered that both the front and rear windshields of his car had been smashed with heavy stones. Seeking to identify the perpetrators, the complainant reviewed CCTV footage from the previous night. The footage reportedly showed a Renault Duster car arriving at the spot at 12:40 a.m. Two primary suspects, identified as Accused Nos. 1 and 2, along with other individuals, were seen emerging from the vehicle, damaging the car with stones, and allegedly attempting to set the vehicle on fire.
Based on this complaint, the police registered an FIR under Section 427 of the Indian Penal Code (Mischief causing damage to the amount of fifty rupees) and Section 2(A) of the Prevention of Destruction and Loss of Property Act.
The Identification of Accused No. 3
While the initial complaint did not specifically name P. Guruprasad, his identity surfaced during the preliminary investigation. Following the arrest of Accused Nos. 1 and 2, the police submitted a remand application to the Magistrate, where Guruprasad was officially listed as Accused No. 3.
Fearing immediate arrest by the Kamakshipalya Police, Guruprasad moved the Sessions Court for anticipatory bail. His legal counsel, Sri Harishkumar R.A., argued that the petitioner was entirely innocent and that no specific allegations had been leveled against him in the original complaint. The defense further emphasized that Guruprasad had no prior criminal antecedents and that the offences in question were not punishable by death or life imprisonment.
Prosecution’s Objection to Bail
The Public Prosecutor, representing the State, filed a strong objection supported by a report from the Investigating Officer. The prosecution contended that Guruprasad was part of the group that actively participated in the vandalism on June 5. They argued that the police had already conducted a spot mahazar and seized incriminating evidence, including the stones used and glass fragments.
The state expressed concerns that if Guruprasad were granted anticipatory bail, he might commit similar offences, threaten the complainant and prosecution witnesses, or abscond from the jurisdiction of the court to evade trial.
The Court’s Reasoning and Judicial Findings
After hearing both sides, Judge S. Nataraj noted several key factors in favor of the petitioner. Firstly, the court highlighted that Accused Nos. 1 and 2 had already been granted regular bail by the Metropolitan Magistrate.
Secondly, the judge observed that the physical evidence—namely the stones and glass shards—was already in police custody. Therefore, the court found that there was no compelling need for the custodial interrogation of Guruprasad to recover further evidence.
“In the complaint, the name of the petitioner is not mentioned,” the court noted. “It is a matter of trial whether the petitioner has involved in the incident along with accused Nos. 1 and 2 or not. The custodial interrogation of the petitioner may not be required.”
The court also took into account that Guruprasad is a permanent resident of Kottigepalya, Bengaluru, which minimized the risk of him fleeing from the legal process.
Final Order and Conditions for Bail
The court allowed the petition under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C., directing that Guruprasad be released on bail in the event of his arrest. The bail was set upon the execution of a personal bond for Rs. 50,000 to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer.
To balance the interests of the investigation and the protection of the witnesses, the court imposed the following five strict conditions:
- The petitioner must appear before the Investigating Officer on or before July 1, 2022, and subsequently whenever required for the purpose of the investigation.
- The accused is strictly prohibited from threatening the complainant or any prosecution witnesses, either directly or indirectly.
- He must regularly appear before the concerned court for all scheduled hearings.
- The petitioner shall not commit any similar offences while on bail.
- Any violation of these conditions will lead to the automatic cancellation of the anticipatory bail order.
This ruling underscores the judiciary’s stance on ensuring that while property crimes are taken seriously, the liberty of an individual is protected when custodial detention is not strictly necessary for the gathering of evidence or the maintenance of public order.