BENGALURU – The LXIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Court in Bengaluru has rejected a regular bail application filed by Sabapathi Raji, a 44-year-old resident of Tamil Nadu, accused of a violent robbery involving a deadly weapon. The court observed that the gravity of the offence and the recovery of stolen property from the accused created a strong prima facie case that outweighed the petitioner’s plea for liberty.
The order was delivered by Judge Sri A.V. Patil on June 30, 2022, in connection with a case registered at the Malleshwaram Police Station. The court emphasized that while individual liberty is a precious right, it must be balanced against the safety of society and the severity of heinous crimes.
Details of the Violent Robbery Incident
The prosecution’s case dates back to an incident on March 7, 2022. According to the police report, the accused, Sabapathi Raji, allegedly committed a “house trespass” robbery in the Malleshwaram area between 1:00 p.m. and 2:00 p.m. It is alleged that Raji forcibly entered the home of a woman, identified as CW2 (Prosecution Witness 2), while she was alone.
The accused is alleged to have assaulted the woman on her neck using a deadly weapon described as a “chopper.” During the violent encounter, he reportedly snatched a gold chain weighing approximately 50 grams that the victim was wearing. Following the incident, the Malleshwaram Police registered a case under Section 397 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, which pertains to robbery or dacoity, with an attempt to cause death or grievous hurt.
Arguments for the Petitioner
The petitioner, represented by Sri Lokesh A., argued that he was a law-abiding citizen and a daily-wage coconut tree climber by profession. The defense contended that the Bengaluru police had taken advantage of the “language barrier” and the fact that Raji was from Tamil Nadu to implicate him in a false case.
Furthermore, the defense pointed out that while the incident allegedly occurred on March 7, the formal complaint was not lodged until March 27, 2022. They also argued that despite the presence of numerous CCTV cameras near the complainant’s house, the police failed to produce footage identifying the petitioner. The petitioner’s counsel stated that Raji’s family in Tamil Nadu was entirely dependent on him for their livelihood and that he had been in judicial custody since March 28, 2022.
Prosecution Opposes Release Based on Recovery
The Public Prosecutor strongly opposed the bail application, submitting that the Investigating Officer had already completed the investigation and filed a charge sheet. The prosecution highlighted a critical piece of evidence: following his arrest, the petitioner allegedly gave a voluntary confession statement that led the police to the recovery of the stolen 50-gram gold chain.
The State argued that the filing of the charge sheet established a clear link between the accused and the crime. They expressed concerns that if released on bail, the petitioner, being a resident of another state, might abscond, tamper with evidence, or commit similar offences in the future.
Judicial Findings and the Nature of Section 397
In its reasoning, the court noted that Section 397 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (now categorized under relevant sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023) is an extremely serious charge. This section mandates a minimum punishment of seven years of rigorous imprisonment if a person uses a deadly weapon or causes grievous hurt during a robbery.
Judge A.V. Patil observed that the recovery of the stolen property based on the accused’s statement provided a “prima facie” ground to believe the offence was committed by him. The court also took a dim view of the petitioner’s conduct regarding his legal filings. It was revealed that Raji had previously filed a bail petition (Crl. Misc. No. 3385/2022), which was dismissed on its merits on April 6, 2022. The petitioner had failed to disclose this prior dismissal in his current application, which the court viewed as a suppression of facts.
Final Decision: Liberty vs. Social Security
The court referred to several Supreme Court precedents, including the cases of Bhoopendra Singh vs. State of Rajasthan and Prashant Singh Rajput vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, which outline the criteria for bail: the nature of the accusation, the role of the accused, the severity of punishment, and the likelihood of fleeing from justice.
The judge concluded that the “heinous nature” of the crime and the potential for the accused to obstruct the trial meant that exercising discretion in his favor was not safe.
“When there are serious allegations supported by sufficient material to raise a prima facie case… bail cannot be granted to such an accused merely on the concept of liberty,” the court remarked. Consequently, the regular bail petition filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, was rejected.