The Court of the LVI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge in Bengaluru has granted regular bail to Vasu G, one of the accused in a violent altercation that took place in Jayanagar in 2022. The order, delivered on April 6, 2024, by Judge Sri. T. Govindaiah, emphasizes the principle of parity in law, noting that other co-accused in the same case had already been granted similar relief.
The petitioner, 29-year-old Vasu G, sought release under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, in connection with Crime No. 78/2022 registered by the Thilaknagar Police Station.
Background of the Jayanagar Egg Rice Stall Assault
The criminal case originated from an incident on the night of May 15, 2022. According to the police charge sheet, the complainant (identified as C.W.1) had gone to Jayanagar 9th Block near East End B Main Road on a scooter to purchase egg rice from a local stall. While placing the order, a verbal spat broke out between the complainant and Accused No. 3.
The situation escalated rapidly. It is alleged that Accused No. 1 incited Accused No. 2 to commit murder. Following this provocation, Accused No. 2 reportedly used a knife to stab another individual (C.W.2) multiple times on his chest, hands, and face. The group is accused of assaulting several witnesses with their hands and issuing death threats.
The Thilaknagar Police filed charges under the following sections of the Indian Penal Code, 1860:
- Section 307: Attempt to murder.
- Section 323: Punishment for voluntarily causing hurt.
- Section 324: Voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means.
- Section 504: Intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace.
- Section 506: Punishment for criminal intimidation.
- Section 34: Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention.
Arguments for and Against Bail
The counsel for Vasu G argued that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the case. The defense highlighted that the investigation is complete and the charge sheet has already been filed (C.C.No.25928/2023), meaning his custodial presence is no longer required for interrogation. Crucially, the defense pointed out that Accused No. 1, 3, and 4 had already been granted bail by the court in previous petitions.
The Public Prosecutor strongly opposed the application, stating that there is prima facie evidence of the petitioner’s involvement in a grave offense punishable by up to ten years of imprisonment. The state expressed concerns that if released, the petitioner might commit similar offenses, threaten witnesses, or flee from the jurisdiction of the court.
Judicial Reasoning: The Ground of Parity
In reviewing the petition, Judge T. Govindaiah noted that while the offenses are non-bailable, they do not carry the death penalty or life imprisonment. The court observed that there was no specific “overt act” or direct physical assault attributed specifically to Vasu G in the prosecution’s narrative of the stabbing.
A significant factor in the court’s decision was the “Ground of Parity.” Since co-accused members of the same group, facing identical charges arising from the same incident, had already been released on regular bail (specifically in Crl.Misc.No.5076/2022 and Crl.Misc.No.5844/2022), the court held that Vasu G was entitled to the same treatment. The judge also noted the petitioner’s status as a permanent resident of Bengaluru with no prior criminal record.
Terms and Conditions of the Release
The court allowed the petition and ordered the release of Vasu G subject to the following stringent conditions to ensure his appearance during the trial:
- The petitioner must execute a personal bond of Rs. 1,00,000 with two sureties of the same amount to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Magistrate.
- He is strictly prohibited from threatening prosecution witnesses or tampering with evidence.
- He must cooperate with any further investigation as and when required.
- He must not commit any similar offenses in the future.
- He is required to attend all court hearing dates without fail.
- He cannot leave the jurisdiction of the trial court without prior permission until the disposal of the case.
The court further clarified that any violation of these conditions would allow the Investigating Officer to move for the immediate cancellation of the bail. With the filing of the charge sheet, the case now moves toward the trial stage in the 37th Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (ACMM) court.