A Sessions Court in Bengaluru has granted regular bail to P. Chakradhari, who was arrayed as Accused No. 2 in a robbery case registered by the City Market Police. The order, delivered by Judge Shri Hemanth Kumar C.R. of the LXV Additional City Civil and Sessions Court, comes just two weeks after the petitioner was taken into judicial custody. The court observed that the offenses alleged were not punishable by death or life imprisonment and that the accused’s presence was no longer required for custodial interrogation.

Background of the Robbery Case

The criminal proceedings against P. Chakradhari, a 46-year-old resident of Guntakal, Andhra Pradesh, stem from an incident that allegedly occurred on the night of January 11, 2023. The complainant, who runs a business under the name “Shubham Traders” in the Balepete area of Bengaluru, lodged a formal complaint regarding a knife-point robbery.

According to the prosecution’s narrative, the complainant closed his shop at approximately 10:30 PM and was walking home. When he reached a secluded spot behind Srinath Lodge on Laxman Rao Road, he was intercepted by an unknown individual. The assailant reportedly caught hold of the complainant, placed a knife against his neck, and forcibly robbed him of Rs. 5,000. The complainant screamed for help, prompting the assailant to flee the scene.

Based on these allegations, the City Market Police registered an FIR in Crime No. 7/2023 under Section 392 (Punishment for robbery) read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). P. Chakradhari was subsequently arrested and remanded to judicial custody on January 12, 2023.

Shutterstock

Arguments for the Petitioner

The petitioner’s counsel, Sri BKR, argued that P. Chakradhari is entirely innocent of the charges. He contended that the petitioner has been falsely implicated and was not involved in the crime, either directly or indirectly. A major point raised by the defense was that the petitioner’s name did not appear in the original FIR or the complainant’s initial statement, suggesting a later addition based on suspicion rather than evidence.

Furthermore, the defense highlighted that the petitioner is a middle-aged man with deep roots in society and no prior criminal record. The counsel argued that the petitioner was merely a worker returning home when he was picked up by the police, possibly due to his inability to speak the local Kannada language, which led to a misunderstanding. It was emphasized that the petitioner is the sole breadwinner for his family, including aged parents, and continued detention would cause irreparable damage to his future and his family’s welfare.

Prosecution’s Resistance to Bail

The Public Prosecutor strongly opposed the bail petition, characterizing the offense as “heinous” in nature. The state argued that the investigation was in its crucial early stages and that a prima facie case existed against the accused for committing robbery with a weapon.

The prosecution raised concerns that if the petitioner were released, he might use his liberty to threaten witnesses or destroy evidence. Additionally, since the petitioner is a resident of Andhra Pradesh (though the court record mentions an apprehension regarding Rajasthan), the prosecution argued there was a significant risk of him absconding to evade the trial.

The Court’s Reasoning and Findings

In evaluating the bail plea under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C., the court noted that the petitioner had been in custody since January 12. Judge Hemanth Kumar C.R. observed that the police had not sought further police custody for investigation during the period of remand, implying that the accused was no longer needed for interrogation or recovery.

The judge remarked that the offense under Section 392 of the IPC, while serious, does not carry the death penalty or life imprisonment. Regarding the prosecution’s fear of the accused fleeing the state, the court held that such concerns could be effectively addressed by imposing stringent conditions rather than denying liberty altogether.

The court reiterated the fundamental principle that the guilt of the accused must be established during a full-dress trial and that bail should not be withheld as a form of pre-trial punishment.

Terms of the Bail Order

The court allowed the petition and ordered the release of P. Chakradhari upon the execution of a personal bond for Rs. 1,00,000 with one surety of a like sum. To ensure the petitioner’s cooperation with the legal process, the court imposed seven specific conditions:

1. The petitioner must appear before the court on every hearing date.
2. He must appear before the Investigating Officer (I.O.) whenever summoned for further investigation.
3. He is strictly prohibited from involving himself in any criminal activities while on bail.
4. He must not tamper with evidence or attempt to influence prosecution witnesses in any manner.
5. He must mark his attendance before the I.O. twice a month (between 9:00 AM and 9:00 PM) until the final charge sheet is filed.
6. He shall not leave the jurisdiction of the court without prior permission.
7. He must produce a valid document as proof of his permanent address.

The ruling provides a path for the petitioner to defend himself from outside of prison while ensuring that the City Market Police can proceed with their investigation unhindered.