The Principal City Civil and Sessions Judge at Bengaluru has granted regular bail to Thosif, also known as Thosif Pasha S, the third accused in a long-standing robbery and conspiracy case. The court, presided over by Judge Ramachandra D. Huddar, ruled that since the investigation is complete and the charge sheet has already been filed, the continued detention of the accused was unnecessary, provided stringent conditions are met to ensure his presence during the trial.
The legal proceedings, registered under Criminal Miscellaneous No. 588/2023, pertain to a case that dates back to 2014. The petitioner was facing charges under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, which deals with criminal conspiracy, read with Section 397 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, which pertains to robbery or dacoity with an attempt to cause death or grievous hurt.
Background of the 2014 Koramangala Robbery Case
The origins of the case lie in an incident that occurred on July 15, 2014. According to the prosecution’s records, the complainant was driving a Tata Ace vehicle loaded with fruits toward Star Bazar in Koramangala. At approximately 10:00 a.m. near the Anthony Church at the Madivala Check Post on Hosur Road, two individuals on a scooter signaled for the vehicle to stop.
When the driver ignored them and continued, the accused overtook the vehicle near the BMTC bus stop and forced it to a halt. The prosecution alleged that the accused snatched a Karbonn mobile phone from the driver and hijacked the fruit-loaded vehicle by threatening him with a knife. Following the investigation, the Koramangala Police filed a charge sheet against six individuals, including Thosif Pasha.
Procedural History and Split-Up Case
While some accused persons were arrested shortly after the incident in late 2014, Thosif Pasha (Accused No. 3) and another individual failed to appear before the court for several years. Consequently, the trial court at the XLI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (ACMM) Bengaluru split the case against the absconding accused to ensure that the trial for the remaining defendants could proceed.
In late 2022, Thosif Pasha sought anticipatory bail from the Sessions Court. While the court did not grant anticipatory bail at that time, it provided him with the liberty to surrender before the jurisdictional Magistrate and seek regular bail. On January 18, 2023, the petitioner appeared before the XLI ACMM Court and filed an application under Section 70(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, to recall the Non-Bailable Warrant (NBW) issued against him. However, the Magistrate rejected the application and remanded him to judicial custody, leading to the current bail petition before the Sessions Court.
Arguments Presented in Court
The counsel for the petitioner, Sri Arun Kumar Dhanvanthri, argued that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated. The defense emphasized that the investigation is entirely concluded and the charge sheet has been filed in C.C. No. 22718/2022. Therefore, the petitioner’s presence was no longer required for any custodial interrogation. They further argued that although the offences are non-bailable, they do not carry the penalty of death or life imprisonment.
The Public Prosecutor strongly opposed the bail, highlighting that the accused had been at large for nearly nine years. The state expressed concern that if released on bail, the petitioner might flee from justice again, tamper with prosecution witnesses, or engage in similar criminal activities.
Judicial Observations and the “Bail is the Rule” Principle
In evaluating the petition, Judge Ramachandra D. Huddar invoked the landmark legal principle established by the Supreme Court of India in the case of Gudikanti Narasimhulu (1978). The judge quoted the late Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer, noting that the issue of bail involves a balance of liberty, justice, and public safety.
The court observed that the liberty of a person should not be curtailed unnecessarily when the investigation is complete. The judge noted that the Magistrate’s earlier rejection of bail was based primarily on the fact that the offence was triable by a Sessions Court. However, the Sessions Court clarified that the mere gravity of the offence is not a sufficient ground to deny bail when the accused is ready to abide by conditions.
Conditions of the Bail Order
The court allowed the petition under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Thosif Pasha was ordered to be released on a personal bond of 50,000 rupees with one surety of the same amount. To ensure the integrity of the trial, the court imposed the following strict conditions:
- The petitioner must appear before the trial court on all scheduled hearing dates without fail.
- He is strictly prohibited from tampering with the prosecution witnesses or the evidence.
- He must not involve himself in any offences of a similar nature in the future.
- He is restricted from leaving the jurisdiction of the court without obtaining prior permission.
The court concluded the order by warning that any breach of these conditions would result in the immediate cancellation of the bail. This ruling underscores the judiciary’s commitment to procedural fairness, ensuring that even in cases involving significant delays, the fundamental right to liberty is preserved once the requirements of the investigating agencies are met.