The LX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge in Bengaluru has granted anticipatory bail to 23-year-old Syed Jafar, who was named as an accused in a case involving the preparation to commit dacoity from nearly five years ago. The court, presided over by Sri Narashimsa M.V., ruled that the police’s claim of the accused “absconding” was untenable, as Jafar had been appearing before other courts in the city during the same period.
The petitioner sought protection from arrest under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, in connection with Crime Number 280/2017 registered at the Siddapura Police Station. The charges include Section 399 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (making preparation to commit dacoity) and Section 402 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (assembling for the purpose of committing dacoity).
The 2017 Police Raid and Alleged Assembly
The origins of the case date back to December 26, 2017. According to the first information report (FIR) filed by an Assistant Sub-Inspector (ASI) of the Siddapura Police, the police received credible information at approximately 3:30 a.m. that a group of 6 to 7 individuals had assembled near Siddapura Kalyani.
The police alleged that the group was armed and discussing plans to commit dacoity in the area. A head constable was reportedly sent in plain clothes to discreetly verify the conversation. Upon receiving a signal, the police team encircled the group. While four suspects were apprehended at the spot, three others—including Jafar, who was later identified as Accused No. 5—allegedly managed to escape into the darkness.
Defense Highlights “Abscondance” Inconsistency
Represented by Advocate A.G. Baseer Ahmed Khan, the petitioner argued that he had been falsely implicated for “statistical purposes” by the local police. The defense made a crucial point regarding the police’s claim that Jafar had been “absconding” since the 2017 incident.
The defense produced certified copies of court records from two other criminal cases (Crime No. 02/2020 and Crime No. 69/2020) where Jafar was also an accused. These records proved that Jafar had been regularly appearing before the 2nd ACMM Magistrate in Bengaluru for those matters. The defense argued that if Jafar were truly an absconding criminal, the Siddapura police could have easily arrested him at those court hearings over the past several years.
Prosecution’s Objection and Fear of Evidence Tampering
The Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application, arguing that the investigation into the escaped individuals was still a priority. The state contended that Jafar is a habitual offender and that granting him bail would likely result in him fleeing the jurisdiction or threatening the witnesses who identified him through the other apprehended co-accused. The prosecution emphasized the seriousness of Sections 399 and 402, which carry significant prison terms.
The Court’s Reasoning: Liberty and Progress of the Case
In evaluating the arguments, Judge Narashimsa M.V. noted that while the charge sheet was filed in 2019, the case against the absconding accused (Nos. 1, 5, and 6) had stalled. The judge found the defense’s evidence of Jafar’s appearances in other courts highly persuasive.
“The theory of abscondance does not hold water,” the judge observed, noting that Jafar was clearly available to the authorities in other legal proceedings. The court also took into account that the offenses alleged—preparation and assembly for dacoity—do not carry the penalty of death or life imprisonment. The judge determined that allowing the petitioner to join the legal process under the protection of bail would actually help progress the long-delayed case.
Conditions for Anticipatory Bail
The court allowed the petition and directed that in the event of his arrest, Syed Jafar must be released subject to the following conditions:
- Personal Bond: The accused must execute a personal bond for 50,000 rupees with one surety of a like sum.
- Court Attendance: Jafar is mandated to appear before the learned Magistrate on the very next date of hearing and continue to attend all future proceedings.
- Non-Interference: He is strictly prohibited from tampering with any prosecution witnesses or evidence.
- Judicial Cooperation: The accused must cooperate with any further investigative requirements as directed by the court.
This ruling underscores the judiciary’s role in verifying police claims of “abscondance” and ensures that old cases are brought to trial without violating the personal liberty of individuals who are already participating in the legal system.
Would you like me to provide a summary of the specific legal requirements for a “Dacoity” charge under the Indian Penal Code, or perhaps a guide on the difference between regular bail and anticipatory bail in India?