The LXVI Additional City Civil and Sessions Court in Bengaluru has dismissed an anticipatory bail petition filed by Saif Khan, alias Saif, in connection with a dacoity case dating back to 2014. The presiding judge, Sri S. Nataraj, ruled that the petition was not maintainable under the law, primarily because the accused had previously been arrested and released on bail, but subsequently failed to appear for trial, leading to the issuance of a proclamation against him.
Background of the HSR Layout Dacoity Case
The legal proceedings stem from a criminal incident that occurred on September 5, 2014. According to the charge sheet filed by the HSR Layout Police Station, the complainant, Vijayendra, along with several friends, had boarded a Tourist Taxi (TT) vehicle near Jayadeva Hospital. At approximately 9:00 p.m., while the vehicle was near BTM Layout, a group of individuals, including the petitioner Saif Khan (Accused No. 4), allegedly intercepted the vehicle.
The prosecution alleged that the accused persons, acting in furtherance of a common intention, suddenly stopped the victims, brandished a knife, and physically assaulted them. During the encounter, the group reportedly robbed the victims of their mobile phones and a cash amount of 8,000 Rupees before fleeing the scene. This led to the registration of Crime Number 581/2018 under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code, which deals with the punishment for dacoity.
Procedural History and Previous Release
During the initial phase of the investigation in 2014, the police successfully arrested Accused Numbers 1 through 4. The investigation resulted in the recovery of the stolen mobile phones and the weapon used in the commission of the crime. Saif Khan was subsequently granted regular bail by the court on October 20, 2014.
The HSR Layout Police completed their investigation and submitted a final charge sheet, which was registered as CC Number 7339/2016 before the 6th Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (ACMM) in Bengaluru. On March 17, 2016, the court took formal cognizance of the offenses and ordered the issuance of summons to the accused persons.
The Petitioner’s Disappearance and Proclamation
The core of the current legal conflict lies in Saif Khan’s conduct following the filing of the charge sheet. Despite repeated summons and warrants issued by the trial court, the petitioner failed to secure his presence before the magistrate. Over the course of several years, the court issued Non-Bailable Warrants (NBW) against the accused to compel his attendance.
When these efforts proved futile, the committal court invoked stringent measures under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Specifically, the court issued a proclamation under Section 82 and Section 83 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. These sections empower a court to publish a written proclamation requiring a person to appear at a specified place and time and allow for the attachment of the absconding person’s property. Following the due publication of this proclamation, the case was posted for evidence under Section 299 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which allows for the recording of evidence in the absence of an absconding accused.
Arguments Presented in Court
Saif Khan, through his counsel Sri. Shaik Ali, moved the Sessions Court seeking anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner argued that he was innocent, had been falsely implicated, and was not involved in the alleged offenses. He expressed a reasonable apprehension of arrest by the HSR Layout Police and claimed that his name was not originally in the First Information Report (FIR).
The Public Prosecutor representing the State of Karnataka vehemently opposed the petition. The prosecution highlighted that Saif Khan was a “proclaimed offender” who had deliberately evaded the judicial process for years. They argued that once a proclamation is issued after a person absconds while on bail, the remedy of anticipatory bail is legally unavailable to them.
The Court’s Ruling on Maintainability
Judge S. Nataraj, in his order dated June 21, 2022, focused squarely on the legal maintainability of the petition. The court noted that Saif Khan was not a stranger to the case; he had been arrested, recovery was made from him, and he had already enjoyed the benefit of bail once.
The court relied on a significant legal precedent set by the Honorable High Court of Karnataka in the case of Ramesh vs. Deputy Range Forest Officer (2022). In that judgment, the High Court held that if an accused has previously appeared before a trial court and subsequently remains absent, leading to the issuance of warrants for deliberate non-attendance, they cannot seek the protection of anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
The Sessions Court concluded that because Saif Khan had absconded after taking cognizance and a proclamation had been issued against him, his petition was “not maintainable.” The judge rejected the application, stating that the petitioner must seek other legal remedies in accordance with the law, which typically involves surrendering to the trial court and applying for regular bail.