In a significant judicial order, the LXVI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge at Bengaluru City (CCH-67) rejected the regular bail application filed by Saloman @ Salo (Accused No. 8) in Crl.Misc.No. 8225/2022. The case involves the gruesome broad-daylight murder of Joseph Babu inside the Branch Manager’s chamber at Union Bank in Koramangala. The prosecution has charge-sheeted the accused under Sections 143, 145, 147, 148, 120-B, 201, 307, and 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), alongside Sections 25(1)(1b) and 27(3) of the Indian Arms Act. Presiding Judge Sri S. Nataraj held that the completion of the investigation and the filing of a charge-sheet do not constitute a change in circumstances, emphasizing that conspiracy and active participation in an unlawful assembly attract vicarious liability under Section 149 IPC.
Background of the Case and Prosecution Allegations
The criminal law was set in motion following the murder of Joseph Babu on July 19, 2021. According to the charge-sheet, the incident unfolded when the deceased, accompanied by his wife (CW-1 Jennifer) and daughter (CW-3 Jesica), left their residence on a motorcycle (KA-02 KE-7057) to collect a Transfer Certificate from Narayana e-Techno School and subsequently handle work at Union Bank, 8th Block, Koramangala.
Prior to their departure, Accused No. 11 met the deceased at 10:15 AM and inquired about his destination. Accused No. 11 immediately relayed this information via telephone to Accused No. 1 at 10:23 AM, disclosing that the deceased was wearing an orange t-shirt and heading toward Union Bank. While en route, CW-2 and CW-3 followed the deceased on another motorcycle.
As the family arrived at Union Bank around 1:30 PM, Accused Nos. 8 (Saloman @ Salo) and 9 tailed them. At 12:14 PM, Accused No. 8 made phone contact with Accused No. 1 to confirm the victim’s location and clothing. Shortly thereafter, Accused Nos. 1 to 7 arrived armed with machetes and choppers to execute a targeted killing stemming from old enmity.
When CW-2 attempted to intervene, Accused No. 1 assaulted him with a chopper. Accused No. 4 also targeted CW-2 with a machete, forcing him and CW-3 to step back. Seeking refuge, Joseph Babu ran inside the Manager’s Chamber of Union Bank and locked the door. Accused Nos. 1 to 3 shattered the glass door with machetes, entered the chamber, and launch an indiscriminate physical assault, inflicting as many as 18 severe injuries. When CW-1 pleaded for her husband’s life and tried to rescue him, she was assaulted on her left hand. The victim’s daughter, CW-3 Jesica, screamed for mercy, but the assailants brutally killed Joseph Babu inside the office.
Accused Nos. 4 to 9, who were guarding the perimeter outside the bank, fled the scene together with Accused Nos. 1 to 3. The entire sequence of events outside and inside the premises was captured on closed-circuit television (CCTV) cameras. Following the crime, Accused Nos. 1 to 9 absconded to Dharmasthala to destroy evidence. Accused Nos. 1 and 8 threw their mobile phones into the Netravathi River, and the assailants discarded their blood-stained clothes into the river before staying at Suketh Guest House under the name of Accused No. 4. Accused Nos. 1 and 4 were arrested on July 20, 2021, while Accused Nos. 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9 were apprehended on July 23, 2021.
Submissions on Behalf of Accused No. 8
Represented by advocate Sri H.N. Ramesh, the petitioner filed the bail application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) urging the following grounds:
- Innocence and False Implication: The petitioner asserted that he is an innocent, law-abiding citizen who was not present at the spot and was a stranger to the incident, claiming false implication due to political influence.
- Absence of Direct Physical Assault: The defense emphasized that the primary allegations of physical assault were directed against Accused Nos. 1 to 3, and Accused No. 8 did not physically assault the deceased.
- Omission from FIR: It was contended that the petitioner’s name was omitted from the initial First Information Report (FIR) registered at Adugodi Police Station and was only added subsequently through voluntary statements.
- Completion of Investigation: The defense argued that since the investigation had concluded and the charge-sheet had been submitted, further judicial custody was unnecessary.
- Lack of Recovery and Residency: The defense submitted that no incriminatory recoveries were made from Accused No. 8 and that he is a permanent resident ready to abide by any court-imposed conditions.
Prosecution Objections and Concerns for Witness Safety
The learned Public Prosecutor strongly opposed the bail application, submitting the Investigating Officer’s report and the complaint copy in Crime No. 98/2022 registered by Adugodi Police Station. The prosecution raised the following objections:
- Active Role in Conspiracy and Surveillance: The prosecution submitted that Accused No. 8 actively tracked the deceased, confirmed his identity and orange t-shirt to Accused No. 1, and guarded the scene outside the bank to ensure the success of the conspiracy.
- Vicarious Liability under Section 149 IPC: Accused No. 8 acted in furtherance of a common object as part of an unlawful assembly armed with deadly weapons, making him fully liable for the resulting murder.
- Destruction of Evidence: Accused No. 8 fled to Dharmasthala post-offence and threw his mobile phone into the Netravathi River to eliminate digital evidence.
- Threat to Witnesses and Subsequent FIR: The prosecution highlighted that CW-1 (the deceased’s wife) had already lodged a subsequent complaint in Crime No. 98/2022 against associates of Accused No. 11 for issuing death threats. Releasing Accused No. 8 would pose a grave danger to the lives of eye-witnesses CWs 1 to 3 and lead to witness tampering.
Judicial Findings and Legal Reasoning
Presiding Judge Sri S. Nataraj evaluated the charge-sheet materials, eye-witness statements, CCTV footage, and legal precedents to answer Point No. 1 in the negative.
Effect of Filing Charge-Sheet on Successive Bail Petitions
The court addressed the defense argument that the filing of the charge-sheet warranted bail. Relying on the Supreme Court judgment in Virupakshappa Gouda & Another v. State of Karnataka ((2017) 5 SCC 406), the court held that the submission of a charge-sheet does not lessen the gravity of the allegations; rather, it establishes that a prima facie case exists following due investigation. The court affirmed that the completion of an investigation is not a change in circumstances that automatically entitles an accused to bail.
Vicarious Liability under Unlawful Assembly (Section 149 IPC)
Responding to the contention that Accused No. 8 did not personally inflict weapon strikes, the court examined the scope of Section 149 IPC. The court noted that every member of an unlawful assembly sharing a common object is held vicariously liable for offences committed in prosecution of that object.
The investigation established that Accused No. 8 actively participated in the conspiracy by:
- Tracking the victim’s movements and relaying live details (including the orange t-shirt) to Accused No. 1 at 12:14 PM.
- Standing guard outside Union Bank while the primary assailants executed the murder inside.
- Fleeing the crime scene alongside the co-accused, as captured on CCTV.
- Escaping to Dharmasthala and disposing of his mobile phone in the Netravathi River to destroy evidence punishable under Section 201 IPC.
Witness Safety and Risk of Tampering
The court observed that CWs 1, 2, and 3 are direct eye-witnesses to the brutal murder. Statements from CWs 2 to 5 explicitly identified Accused No. 8. Given that CW-1 had already filed a criminal complaint regarding post-incident death threats made by friends of the co-accused, the court expressed serious concern over witness intimidation. The court ruled that the gravity of the offence, combined with a demonstrable threat to the lives of CWs 1 to 3, rendered continued pre-trial detention necessary.
The court explicitly noted that these findings are based on prima facie materials on record for the purpose of deciding the bail application and do not constitute a final determination of guilt, which remains to be established during the trial.
Final Order
Answering Point No. 1 in the negative, the court rejected Crl.Misc.No. 8225/2022 on September 26, 2022.
The exact substance of the final order is as follows:
ORDER
The bail application by accused No.8/Saloman @ Salo under Section 439 CrPC is rejected.