The LV Additional City Civil and Sessions Court in Bengaluru has rejected the bail application of Syed Imran, popularly known in police circles as “Tablet Imran,” in connection with a violent highway robbery near REVA College. The court, presided over by Judge Shriram Narayan Hegde, observed that the accused is a habitual offender with a long string of criminal cases pending against him, making him a threat to public safety if released.
Details of the Violent Confrontation and Robbery
The case, registered as Crime Number 93/2022 by the Yelahanka Police Station, stems from a terrifying incident that occurred on April 9, 2022. According to the complaint filed by Sri Vijeesh K, the victim was traveling with his driver in a Toyota Fortuner on Bagalur Cross Road at approximately 2:30 p.m.
The victim alleged that two men on a two-wheeler began riding in a zig-zag fashion on the left side of his car. When the driver honked to warn them, the riders moved to the right side and began hurling abuses. Sensing danger, the driver attempted to make a U-turn, but the accused overtook the vehicle and forced it to a halt in front of REVA College.
The prosecution detailed that one of the riders approached the car and used a knife to smash the left side of the windscreen. Simultaneously, the second accused (Syed Imran) allegedly threatened the complainant with a knife and attempted to snatch his mobile phone. When the victim resisted, the accused forcibly robbed 5,000 Rupees in cash from his pocket and caused bleeding injuries before fleeing the scene.
Legal Charges and Defense Contentions
Syed Imran was booked under several sections of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, including Section 341 (Punishment for wrongful restraint), Section 427 (Mischief causing damage to the amount of fifty rupees), Section 504 (Intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace), Section 506 (Punishment for criminal intimidation), and the grave Section 397 (Robbery, or dacoity, with attempt to cause death or grievous hurt).
Advocate Darshan Kumar, representing the petitioner, argued that the accused was innocent and had been falsely implicated. The defense contended that the area near REVA College is a busy locality, making it improbable for such a crime to occur in broad daylight. They further noted that Syed Imran’s name was not explicitly mentioned in the initial First Information Report (FIR) and that no recoveries were made directly from his person. The defense emphasized that the offenses were not punishable by death or life imprisonment and that the petitioner was willing to abide by any court-imposed conditions.
Prosecution Highlights Extensive Criminal History
The Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the bail plea, presenting a report from the Investigating Officer that painted the accused as a chronic threat to society. The prosecution revealed that the entire incident had been recorded on a mobile phone by the complainant, providing strong prima facie evidence. Furthermore, the police stated that the weapon used in the crime and the stolen cash had been recovered during the investigation.
The most damning evidence presented was the criminal record of Syed Imran. The prosecution listed eight pending cases against him in various police stations across Bengaluru, involving serious charges:
- Crime No. 251/2019 (Soladevanahalli PS) – Section 397 of IPC (Robbery with attempt to cause death).
- Crime No. 164/2011 (Kadugondanahalli PS) – Section 395 of IPC (Punishment for dacoity).
- Crime No. 396/2020 (Kadugondanahalli PS) – Section 399 and 402 of IPC (Preparation for dacoity).
- Crime No. 156/2021 (Sampigehalli PS) – Section 384 of IPC (Punishment for extortion).
- Crime No. 147/2021 (Sampigehalli PS) – Section 454, 380, and 511 of IPC (Lurking house-trespass and theft).
- Crime No. 234/2021 (Sampigehalli PS) – Section 457 and 380 of IPC (House-breaking by night).
- Crime No. 264/2021 (Sampigehalli PS) – Section 384 of IPC (Extortion).
- Crime No. 256/2021 (Yelahanka PS) – Section 394 of IPC (Voluntarily causing hurt in committing robbery).
The Court’s Decision and Reasoning
Judge Shriram Narayan Hegde noted that while a “mini-trial” is not necessary at the bail stage, the court must evaluate the prima facie involvement of the accused. The judge pointed out that this was the second successive bail petition filed by Syed Imran within a short span of 25 days, with the previous application having been rejected on May 27, 2022.
The court observed that under Section 397 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, the minimum punishment is seven years of imprisonment. Given the petitioner’s status as a habitual offender, the court expressed serious concerns that he would abscond, tamper with prosecution witnesses, or commit similar violent offenses if released.
Finding no changed circumstances since the last rejection, the court ruled that Syed Imran did not make out sufficient grounds for bail. The petition filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, was officially rejected, and the accused will remain in judicial custody pending trial.