The LXIV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge in Bengaluru has rejected the regular bail application of Syed Javeed, identified as Accused Number 2 in the high-profile murder case of Diwan Ali. The court, presided over by Sri A.V. Patil, ruled that the petitioner’s history of violating previous bail conditions and absconding from trial made him ineligible for further discretionary relief. The order emphasizes that granting bail to an individual who has already demonstrated a disregard for judicial mandates would hamper the progress of the trial.

The petitioner, Syed Javeed, aged 43 and a resident of Tilak Nagar, Jayanagar, approached the court under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking release from judicial custody. He is facing serious charges in connection with Crime Number 12/2011 registered at the Banashankari Police Station.

The 2011 Banashankari Murder Case: An Overview

The prosecution’s case dates back to January 16, 2011, involving an alleged targeted assassination. According to the police investigation, a group of accused persons formed an unlawful assembly armed with deadly weapons, including sickles and a pistol. The group allegedly ambushed the victim, Diwan Ali, and assaulted him brutally. Diwan Ali succumbed to the injuries sustained during the attack.

The police filed a charge sheet alleging that the accused acted in furtherance of a criminal conspiracy and a common object to commit murder. Syed Javeed is accused of being an active participant in this unlawful assembly, allegedly armed with a “long” (a type of machete) to attack the victim.

The charges leveled against Javeed include several sections of the Indian Penal Code, 1860:

• Section 143: Punishment for being a member of an unlawful assembly.
• Section 144: Joining unlawful assembly armed with deadly weapon.
• Section 147: Punishment for rioting.
• Section 148: Rioting, armed with deadly weapon.
• Section 324: Voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means.
• Section 307: Attempt to murder.
• Section 302: Punishment for murder.
• Section 120(B): Punishment for criminal conspiracy.
• Section 149: Every member of unlawful assembly guilty of offence committed in prosecution of common object.

Procedural History and Bail Bond Violations

A significant factor in the court’s decision was the petitioner’s past conduct during the pendency of the case. The records revealed that Javeed had been granted regular bail previously on December 21, 2021. However, following his release, he failed to appear for subsequent court hearings, leading the court to issue a Non-Bailable Warrant (NBW) against him.

On March 23, 2024, the police successfully executed the warrant and produced Javeed before the court, after which he was remanded to judicial custody. The court noted that by failing to appear, the petitioner had not only misused the liberty granted to him but had also breached the conditions of his bail bond. Furthermore, the court highlighted that despite the execution of the NBW, the petitioner had failed to pay the bail bond amount that became due upon the violation of his release terms.

Arguments Presented by the Defense and Prosecution

The counsel representing Syed Javeed argued that the petitioner was innocent and had been made a “scapegoat” by the Banashankari police for “statistical purposes.” The defense claimed there was no direct overt act attributed to Javeed regarding the alleged crimes and that he was prepared to abide by any stringent conditions the court might impose for his release.

The Public Prosecutor strongly opposed the application, pointing out that the filing of the charge sheet after a detailed investigation provided prima facie evidence of the petitioner’s involvement. The state argued that Javeed’s prior behavior—specifically his failure to appear and the subsequent need for a police warrant to secure his presence—indicated a high risk of him absconding again if released.

Judicial Reasoning: Bail as a Discretionary Power

In the final order, Judge A.V. Patil observed that the nature and gravity of the accusations are exceptionally serious, involving the cold-blooded murder of an individual. The court emphasized that the severity of the punishment in the event of a conviction (which could include life imprisonment or the death penalty under Section 302) often influences the likelihood of an accused fleeing from justice.

The court held that Javeed had clearly violated the trust reposed in him by the judiciary when he was first enlarged on bail. “If the accused is enlarged on bail, he may abscond and thereby the trial may hamper,” the judge noted. The court concluded that Javeed’s failure to pay the bail bond amount after the breach further reflected his non-compliance with the legal process.

Finding no sufficient grounds to exercise judicial discretion in favor of the petitioner, the court rejected the bail application. Syed Javeed will remain in judicial custody as the trial for the 2011 murder continues.