The LXI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge in Bengaluru has granted bail to Santosh Reddy alias Santosh, who was arrayed as Accused Number 6 in a case involving allegations of hatching a plan to commit dacoity. The court, presided over by Sri R. Ravi, delivered the order on June 22, 2022, emphasizing the lack of specific overt acts attributed to the petitioner and his status as a permanent resident of the city.
Background of the Case and Police Raid
The criminal proceedings originated from a suo-moto case registered by the K.S. Layout Police Station under Crime Number 0193/2022. According to the prosecution’s allegations, on June 9, 2022, at approximately 7:00 p.m., the petitioner along with other co-accused persons had gathered near Pipeline Road, Iliyas Nagar, within the jurisdiction of K.S. Layout.
The police claimed that the group was equipped with deadly weapons and was actively hatching a plan to commit dacoity targeting members of the general public passing through the area. Based on this information, the police conducted a raid and arrested the individuals at the spot. The accused were subsequently charged under Section 399 of the Indian Penal Code, which pertains to making preparation to commit dacoity, and Section 402 of the Indian Penal Code, which deals with assembling for the purpose of committing dacoity.
Additionally, charges were invoked under Section 25(1B)(b) and Section 4 of the Arms Act, 1959. These sections relate to the illegal possession and carrying of arms in contravention of government notifications. Following his arrest, Santosh Reddy was remanded to judicial custody.
Arguments Presented by the Petitioner
Representing the petitioner, Advocate Sri Srinivas S.V. argued that Santosh Reddy was entirely innocent of the alleged offences. The defense contended that the petitioner was not even aware of the incident and was not present at the alleged spot. It was further argued that the petitioner had no prior acquaintance with the other accused persons and had never colluded with them for any criminal purpose, directly or indirectly.
The defense highlighted that the petitioner is the sole earning member of his family, with aged parents who are entirely dependent on him for their livelihood. Crucially, the counsel pointed out that there was no specific overt act attributed to Santosh Reddy in the police report. Furthermore, the defense emphasized that the offences alleged are not punishable with death or imprisonment for life, making him eligible for the court’s discretion under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
Prosecution’s Objections
The Public Prosecutor strongly opposed the bail application, filing written objections. The state argued that the materials on record prima-facie disclosed the involvement of the petitioner in the commission of serious offences against public safety. The prosecution expressed apprehension that if the petitioner were granted bail at this stage, he might abscond or tamper with the prosecution witnesses, thereby hampering the trial and the delivery of justice.
The Court’s Reasoning and Findings
In evaluating the bail petition, the court looked at the nature and gravity of the offences alongside the rights of the accused. Judge R. Ravi noted that while the allegations involved planning a dacoity with deadly weapons, the petitioner had been in judicial custody since his apprehension.
The court observed that since the petitioner is a permanent resident of Yalachenahalli, Bengaluru, with deep roots in the society, his presence could be easily secured for the trial. Furthermore, the court took into account that the offences under Sections 399 and 402 of the Indian Penal Code and the relevant sections of the Arms Act do not carry capital punishment.
The judge stated that the truth of the allegations must be decided through a thorough trial and that the prosecution’s fears of the accused absconding could be mitigated by imposing stringent conditions. Consequently, the court found that the petitioner had made out a prima-facie case for the grant of bail.
Conditions of the Bail Order
The court allowed the bail petition filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, subject to the following strict conditions intended to ensure the integrity of the ongoing investigation and subsequent trial:
- The petitioner shall be released on executing a personal bond for 1,00,000 Rupees with one surety for a like sum amount.
- The petitioner must appear before the Investigating Officer within 30 days of the order and co-operate with the investigation whenever called.
- The petitioner must mark his attendance at the police station once a month on every second Saturday until the final report is filed.
- The petitioner is strictly prohibited from holding any threat to the complainant or tampering with prosecution witnesses, either directly or indirectly.
- The petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the court without obtaining prior permission.
- The petitioner must furnish proof of his residential address and that of his surety.
- The petitioner shall not indulge in any similar type of criminal offences in the future.
- The petitioner must appear before the trial court regularly upon receipt of summons.
The court explicitly warned that if the petitioner fails to obey any of the aforementioned conditions, the bail order would automatically stand cancelled.