BENGALURU – The LVI Additional City Civil and Sessions Court in Bengaluru has rejected the regular bail application of 26-year-old Sajjad Khan, also known as Sajjad, who is accused of stabbing a man during a botched robbery attempt in the Chamarajpet area. The court, presided over by Judge Sri T. Govindaiah, observed that the investigation is still in progress and the gravity of the offense, coupled with the potential threat to the victim, outweighed the petitioner’s plea for liberty.
The case, registered under Crime Number 163/2022 at the Chamarajpet Police Station, involves serious charges under the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The accused faces prosecution under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, which pertains to Attempt to Murder, and Section 398 of the Indian Penal Code, which deals with Attempt to commit robbery or dacoity when armed with a deadly weapon.
The Midnight Assault in Chamarajpet
The incident dates back to the night of December 21, 2022. According to the prosecution’s case, the complainant’s son had left his residence at approximately 11:00 PM to purchase medicine from a nearby pharmacy due to a burning sensation in his eyes. After a brief return to collect cash from his father because his digital payment application was malfunctioning, he headed back toward the medical shop.
At approximately 11:49 PM, the father received an urgent phone call from his son asking him to rush to the pharmacy. Upon arrival, the father witnessed a horrific scene: his son was walking toward him while clutching his stomach, with blood oozing from a deep wound. The victim recounted that while he was returning from the shop, an unknown individual—later identified by the police as Sajjad Khan—approached him and attempted to snatch his mobile phone. When the victim resisted the robbery attempt, the assailant drew a knife and stabbed him in the abdomen before fleeing the scene. The victim was immediately rushed to Victoria Hospital for emergency treatment.
Arguments Presented by the Defense
The petitioner, a resident of Tippu Nagar in Chamarajpet, moved the court under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking regular bail. His counsel, Sri Abijith M.M., argued that Sajjad Khan was innocent and had been falsely implicated in the crime. The defense contended that there was an inordinate delay in filing the official complaint and that no substantial material existed to link the petitioner to the assault.
Furthermore, the defense pleaded for mercy on humanitarian grounds, stating that the petitioner is the sole breadwinner for his family and has elderly parents to support. Notably, the counsel invoked the “ground of parity,” pointing out that Accused Number 2 in the same case had already been granted regular bail, and therefore, Sajjad Khan should be extended the same relief.
Prosecution Opposes Release Citing Severity of Crime
The State of Karnataka, represented by the Public Prosecutor, filed a strong objection to the bail petition. The prosecution argued that the offenses alleged are heinous and carry a potential imprisonment term of up to ten years or more. The State expressed grave concerns that if Sajjad Khan were enlarged on bail, he would likely tamper with prosecution witnesses, threaten the complainant, or flee from the course of justice. They emphasized that the petitioner’s presence was necessary for the ongoing investigation to reach its logical conclusion.
The Court’s Findings and Judicial Reasoning
In the detailed order dated January 30, 2023, Judge T. Govindaiah meticulously analyzed the facts presented by both sides. The court noted that following the arrest on December 24, 2022, the police had seized several incriminating items, including a blood-stained shirt, a blood-stained baniyan (undershirt), and a pair of pants, which were documented under Property Form (PF) Number 97/2022.
Regarding the defense’s argument for parity with Accused Number 2, the court distinguished the roles, identifying Sajjad Khan as the “main accused” who allegedly dealt the physical blow. The judge highlighted a critical lack of documentation from the defense regarding the victim’s current medical status. The court noted that it was unclear whether the victim had been discharged or if the injuries sustained were classified as “simple” or “grievous” under the law.
“The investigation is under progress. No documents are produced to show that the injured is discharged from the hospital,” the Judge remarked in the reasons for the order. The court further emphasized that releasing the petitioner at this juncture could lead to the intimidation of the complainant and the tampering of vital evidence.
Ultimately, the court determined that given the nature and gravity of the offense under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code (Attempt to Murder) and Section 398 of the Indian Penal Code (Armed Attempted Robbery), the petitioner did not merit the grant of regular bail. Consequently, the petition filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, was dismissed. Sajjad Khan remains in judicial custody pending further proceedings before the XXIV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate in Bengaluru.