BENGALURU – A City Civil and Sessions Court has denied regular bail to two men accused of assaulting a patron with a knife at a bar in the Gandhinagar area. The court observed that the investigation into the attempted murder case is still in its active stages and the release of the accused could potentially hamper the collection of evidence and the recording of witness statements.

The order was passed by Sri Rajesh Karnam K., presiding over the LVI Additional City Civil and Sessions Court. The petitioners, 40-year-old Prasanna Kumar (also known as Prasanna) and 24-year-old Ajay Joseph Chacko (also known as Ajay), were seeking release under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Both were arrested by the Upparpet Police following a violent incident in June 2022.

The Night of the Assault

The criminal proceedings were initiated following a complaint regarding an incident that occurred in the early hours of June 14, 2022. According to the prosecution’s case, the complainant, along with his friends Annappa and Suresh, had visited the Minchu Bar and Restaurant located in Gandhinagar to consume alcohol.

At approximately 3:00 am, the situation turned violent when two individuals, later identified as the petitioners, allegedly approached the group and demanded a mobile phone. The confrontation escalated quickly; one of the accused reportedly grabbed the complainant by his shirt collar and began hurling abuses. Simultaneously, the other accused allegedly brandished a knife and assaulted the complainant on the head, resulting in a significant injury near his left eye.

The Upparpet Police subsequently registered Crime No. 84/2022 under Sections 341 (Punishment for wrongful restraint), 504 (Intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace), and 307 (Attempt to murder) read with Section 34 (Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention) of the Indian Penal Code.

Defense Claims of Innocence

Counsel for the petitioners, Sri B.K. Ramesh, argued that his clients were innocent of the charges and had been falsely implicated by the police. The defense contended that there was no prior motive or ill will between the parties and that the incident occurred in an “abrated situation” or a sudden provocation among strangers.

The defense further argued that the injuries sustained by the complainant were simple in nature and did not warrant a charge of attempted murder. Highlighting their personal backgrounds, the counsel stated that the petitioners are the primary bread earners for their respectable families and are permanent residents of Bengaluru with no prior criminal antecedents. They expressed a total willingness to abide by any court-imposed conditions to secure their liberty.

Prosecution Cites Ongoing Investigation

The Public Prosecutor strongly opposed the bail application, presenting the Case Diary (CD) to the court. The prosecution argued that despite the charge sheet not being filed yet, the Investigating Officer (IO) had already identified eye-witnesses and was in the process of recording their formal statements.

A key concern raised by the state was the risk of witness tampering. The prosecutor argued that if released at this sensitive juncture, the accused might use their liberty to influence witnesses or flee from justice. The court was also informed that the further presence of the accused was necessary for the investigation, including the formal processing of fingerprints and other forensic requirements.

The Court’s Verdict

After perusing the case records and the police investigation reports, Judge Rajesh Karnam K. found that the allegations were serious in nature, involving a daylight assault with a lethal weapon. The court noted that the investigation is currently at a critical stage where the IO is gathering material evidence to support the charges under Section 307 of the IPC.

The judge observed that the satisfaction of the court regarding the requirements of Section 439 was not met, given the active status of the probe. “As the investigation is still in progress and the IO seeks the custody of the accused as necessary, this court at this stage is not satisfied to consider the bail application,” the order stated.

The court concluded that the petitioners do not deserve regular bail at this point. Consequently, the bail petitions of both Prasanna Kumar and Ajay Joseph Chacko were rejected. The accused will remain in judicial custody as the Upparpet Police proceed toward filing a formal charge sheet.

Would you like me to create a summary of the legal conditions under which bail is typically denied in Section 307 cases?