The LIX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge in Bengaluru has rejected the bail application of 20-year-old Thuphel, popularly known by the alias “Chota Nagesh,” in connection with a high-profile serial arson case involving the burning of multiple vehicles. The court, presided over by Judge Sadananda Nagappa Naik, observed that the accused’s history of absconding from legal proceedings and the severity of the charges made him unfit for release on bail at this stage.
The legal proceedings, registered under Criminal Miscellaneous No. 5970/2022, pertain to a long-standing criminal case originally registered in 2014 by the HAL Police Station. The petitioner, Thuphel, who is the primary accused (Accused No. 1) in the case, sought regular bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The charges against him include violations of Section 435 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Arson with intent to cause damage), Section 436 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Mischief by fire or explosive substance with intent to destroy a house or property), and Section 438 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Punishment for the same offences when committed by fire or explosive substances).
The 2014 Serial Arson Incident
The roots of the case trace back to the intervening night of November 7 and 8, 2014. According to the prosecution’s records, a terrifying incident occurred in the HAL police limits where a series of parked vehicles were set ablaze by unknown miscreants. The complaint, filed by R. Subramani, detailed a list of over ten vehicles that were either partially or completely destroyed by fire.
The vehicles targeted included diverse registrations from Karnataka, Andhra Pradesh, and Tamil Nadu. The scale of the property damage caused significant public alarm at the time, leading to the registration of Crime No. 834/2014. Following a detailed investigation, the police filed a charge sheet in 2015, and the case was eventually committed to the Sessions Court as S.C. No. 206/2015.
Defense Claims Innocence and Medical Grounds
The petitioner, represented by Advocate Sri Shaik Ali, contended that Thuphel was absolutely innocent and had been falsely implicated in the crime without any direct evidence. The defense argued that there was no specific mention of any overt act attributed to the petitioner in the initial records and that there was no history of previous grudges between the complainant and the accused.
Notably, the defense also raised medical grounds, stating that the petitioner had been suffering from kidney stones and had recently undergone surgery, requiring a period of recovery that would be difficult to manage within the confines of judicial custody. They maintained that Thuphel hailed from a respectable family and, being a permanent resident of Bengaluru, posed no flight risk. The defense expressed full willingness to abide by any stringent conditions imposed by the court.
Prosecution Highlights a Pattern of Absconding
The Public Prosecutor strongly opposed the bail petition, presenting a detailed objection report that highlighted the petitioner’s past behavior during the trial. The prosecution pointed out that Thuphel had previously been granted bail on July 24, 2017. However, instead of participating in the trial, he remained absent for numerous hearing dates.
The court records indicated that the petitioner had absconded for a significant duration, forcing the court to issue proclamations against him multiple times. He was eventually apprehended through a warrant and remanded back to judicial custody. The prosecution argued that the trial, which has been pending since 2015, has failed to progress primarily due to the non-cooperation and repeated disappearance of the petitioner.
Judicial Observations and Final Verdict
In evaluating the petition, Judge Sadananda Nagappa Naik outlined the essential criteria for granting bail, including the nature of the accusation, the severity of the potential punishment, and the likelihood of the accused absconding. The court noted that arson is a serious offence that impacts the larger interest of the public and the state.
The court’s primary concern was the petitioner’s proven track record of disrespecting the judicial process. The judge observed that the matter in S.C. No. 206/2015 has remained stagnant for years because of Thuphel’s absence. The court held that if the petitioner were released on bail again, there was a high probability that he would hamper the progress of the case, threaten witnesses, or potentially commit similar offences.
Given the history of the case and the seriousness of the charges under the Indian Penal Code, 1860, the court found no merit in the petition. The judge concluded that the petitioner’s right to liberty was outweighed by the need for a fair and timely trial and the safety of the community. Consequently, the bail petition filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, was rejected.