The LXI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge in Bengaluru has granted bail to two young men arrested in connection with an alleged conspiracy to commit dacoity. The court, presided over by Sri R. Ravi, delivered the order on June 22, 2022, following a detailed hearing on the bail petition filed by the accused. The petitioners, identified as Soori alias RX Soori and Nithin alias Nithi, were in judicial custody following their arrest by the K.S. Layout Police.

Case Background and Allegations

The criminal proceedings were initiated under Crime Number 0193/2022 by the K.S. Layout Police Station. According to the first information report and the complaint filed by the police, the incident occurred on June 9, 2022. It was alleged that around 7:00 p.m., the petitioners along with other co-accused gathered near Pipe Line Road in Iliyas Nagar, K.S. Layout.

The prosecution contended that the group was equipped with deadly weapons and was hatching a plan to commit dacoity by targeting members of the general public passing through the area. Based on these allegations, the police registered a case for offences punishable under the following sections:

Section 399 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: Making preparation to commit dacoity.

Section 402 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: Assembling for the purpose of committing dacoity.

Section 25(1B)(b) of the Arms Act, 1959: Possession of certain prohibited arms or ammunition.

Section 4 of the Arms Act, 1959: License for acquisition and possession of arms of specified description.

Arguments for the Defense

Counsel for the petitioners, Sri Basavaraju G, argued that Soori and Nithin were completely innocent of the alleged offences. The defense maintained that they were never involved in the alleged crime, either directly or indirectly, and claimed they were falsely implicated by the police merely for statistical purposes to close pending cases.

The defense highlighted that the petitioners hail from respectable families and have no prior criminal record or bad antecedents. Furthermore, the counsel argued that since the case was a “suo-moto” registration (initiated by the police themselves rather than a private victim), there was no risk of the accused tampering with private witnesses. They also pointed out that no deadly weapons were actually recovered from the specific possession of these two petitioners and that the offences, while serious, do not carry the penalty of death or life imprisonment.

Prosecution Opposes Liberty

The learned Public Prosecutor filed a detailed objection to the bail application. The prosecution argued that the grounds urged by the petitioners were unsatisfactory and that the material on record prima facie disclosed their involvement in a planned criminal act. The state expressed concerns that if released on bail at this stage, the petitioners might abscond from the law or attempt to tamper with the prosecution witnesses, which would ultimately hamper the upcoming trial.

The Court’s Observations and Reasoning

In evaluating the rival contentions, Judge R. Ravi noted that the petitioners had been in judicial custody since the date of their apprehension. The court observed that the addresses provided in the cause title confirmed that the petitioners are permanent residents of Bengaluru, which significantly reduces the risk of them absconding as their presence can be easily secured for trial.

The judge further noted that the offences under Section 399 and 402 of the Indian Penal Code, as well as the relevant sections of the Arms Act, are not punishable by death or life imprisonment. The court emphasized that the actual involvement of the petitioners is a matter of fact that must be decided through a thorough trial. The judge concluded that the apprehension of the prosecution regarding witness tampering or fleeing from justice could be adequately addressed by imposing stringent conditions rather than continued detention.

Terms of the Bail Order

The court allowed the bail petition filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The petitioners were ordered to be released on bail subject to several strict conditions:

Each petitioner must execute a personal bond of 1,00,000 rupees with one surety of a similar amount. They are required to appear before the Investigating Officer within 30 days and must co-operate with all investigative procedures. Furthermore, they must mark their attendance at the police station once a month, specifically on the second Saturday, until the final report or charge sheet is filed.

The court also prohibited the petitioners from holding out any threats to the complainant or tampering with any prosecution witnesses directly or indirectly. They are restricted from leaving the jurisdiction of the court without prior permission and must furnish residential address proof for themselves and their sureties. Finally, the judge warned that the petitioners must not indulge in similar offences in the future and must attend all court summons regularly. Any violation of these terms will lead to the automatic cancellation of the bail order.