The LVIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge in Bengaluru has granted regular bail to 22-year-old Sudeep, popularly known as Slum, who was arrested in connection with the illegal possession of a lethal weapon. The court, presided over by Sri N. Krishnaiah, ruled that custodial interrogation was no longer necessary as the weapon had already been recovered and the accused had no prior criminal record.

The petitioner, a resident of BHK Colony in Yeshwanthapura, was apprehended by the Govindarajanagar Police during a vehicle interception. He was charged under Section 35 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and Section 25(1B)(B) of the Arms Act, 1959. The case highlights the judiciary’s stance on balancing public safety with the personal liberty of individuals in cases where investigation requirements have been met.

Details of the Incident and Arrest

The legal proceedings were initiated based on a suo motu complaint registered by the Assistant Commissioner of Police (ACP) of Govindarajanagar. According to the prosecution’s case, on June 12, 2022, around 4:30 PM, the ACP and his staff were conducting routine vehicle checks near Arjun Bar. At approximately 4:45 PM, the police spotted three individuals, including Sudeep, traveling on a Honda Activa two-wheeler belonging to the Vogo rental company.

When signaled to stop for inspection, the accused reportedly attempted to flee the scene. However, the police team surrounded the vehicle and apprehended all three occupants. During the subsequent search, a “dragon type” sword was seized from their possession. Upon enquiry, the accused allegedly confessed that they were carrying the weapon to threaten anyone who might interfere with their attempts to commit theft. Following the arrest, Sudeep was produced before the 24th Additional Metropolitan Magistrate and remanded to judicial custody on June 13, 2022.

Arguments Presented by the Defense

Advocate Krishnamurthy, appearing for Sudeep, argued that the petitioner was innocent and had been falsely implicated in the case. The defense raised several procedural doubts, noting that the prosecution had failed to mention the exact length and thickness of the seized sword, which is a critical detail in Arms Act cases.

Furthermore, the defense highlighted a procedural lapse, stating that the police had failed to draw a spot mahazar (recovery memo) at the location of the arrest. Instead, the accused and the weapon were brought directly to the station, which the defense argued was a violation of mandatory legal protocols. It was emphasized that Sudeep had been in custody for several days, the investigation was nearly complete, and the alleged offenses did not carry the penalty of death or life imprisonment.

Prosecution Opposes Release

The Learned Public Prosecutor strongly opposed the bail application. The state argued that there was sufficient prima facie evidence linking Sudeep to the other accused persons (Accused Nos. 1 and 2) in a common intention to commit crimes. The prosecution expressed concerns that if released on bail, the petitioner might commit similar offenses, tamper with evidence, or abscond from the court’s jurisdiction, thereby hindering a fair investigation.

Judicial Observations and Final Order

After hearing both sides, the court observed that while the offenses were serious, they did not fall under the category of crimes punishable by death or life imprisonment. Judge N. Krishnaiah noted that Sudeep had no prior criminal antecedents or background mentioned in the police records. The court found that since the weapon was already in police custody, there was no need for further custodial interrogation of the petitioner.

The court further noted that the petitioner is a permanent resident of Bengaluru with “deep roots in the society,” making him unlikely to flee from justice. Consequently, the court exercised its discretionary power to grant bail, noting that stringent conditions could serve the purpose of the prosecution.

The court allowed the petition under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Sudeep was ordered to be released subject to the execution of a personal bond of 1,00,000 rupees and two sureties of the same amount. The conditions for his release include:

1. The petitioner must not threaten prosecution witnesses or hamper evidence.
2. He must appear before the Investigating Officer and cooperate whenever called.
3. He must not commit similar offenses in the future.
4. He must attend all court hearings regularly.
5. He is prohibited from leaving the jurisdiction of the trial court without prior permission, except in cases of medical emergencies.