In a significant judicial order delivered on April 6, 2024, the LXV Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City (CCH-66), Shri Hemanth Kumar C.R., B.A.L., LL.B., dismissed the regular bail application filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 3088/2024. The court refused to grant regular bail to Alex alias Alexander (Accused No. 2) in connection with Crime No. 296/2023 registered by the Adugodi Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 302 (murder), and 307 (attempt to murder) read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

Factual Background and Prosecution Allegations

The criminal proceedings were set into motion based on a complaint lodged by Sri Mohan alias Prakash, son of Devaraj. According to the prosecution case, on October 8, 2023, at approximately 9:00 PM, a violent altercation broke out during a Ganesha idol immersion procession near Anjaneya Temple and Adugodi Samudhya Bhavan in Bengaluru.

The dispute arose when Srinivas (the complainant’s cousin) stopped Vinay alias Pathu and his associates from dancing during the procession. Enraged by this, Vinay abused Srinivas in filthy language and assaulted him with a dagger in his stomach. Following the initial assault, Accused Nos. 1 to 4 along with other associates armed with daggers and longs (deadly weapons) repeatedly assaulted Srinivas on his face, chest, and stomach.

When the complainant, his aunt Smt. Indira, and Balachandra intervened to rescue Srinivas and transport him to the hospital, the accused group attacked them with deadly weapons as well, causing severe injuries to Smt. Indira in an attempt on her life. Srinivas succumbed to his injuries.

Following the complaint, the Adugodi Police registered Crime No. 296/2023. Investigating authorities subsequently arrested Alex alias Alexander, arrayed as Accused No. 2, and remanded him to judicial custody. Upon completing the investigation, the police filed a formal charge-sheet under Sections 143, 147, 148, 302, and 307 read with Section 149 IPC.

The details of the petitioner as per court records are:

• Alex alias Alexander (Accused No. 2): Aged 28 years, son of Muthu, residing at No. 20/7, 4th Cross, near Srinivasa Temple, Maruthi Nagar, Madivala, Bengaluru.

Arguments Advanced on Behalf of the Petitioner

Appearing on behalf of the applicant, learned advocate Sri M.V.M. submitted the following grounds seeking regular bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C.:

• Innocence and False Implication: The petitioner maintained that he was entirely innocent of the alleged crimes, was not named in the initial FIR, and was falsely implicated at the instance of the complainant.
• Absence of Specific Overt Act and Recovery: The defence argued that no specific overt act was attributed against the petitioner, no incriminatory weapons were recovered at his instance, and no previous ill-will or motive existed.
• Completion of Investigation: Counsel highlighted that the police had completed the investigation and submitted the charge-sheet, rendering further custodial interrogation unnecessary.
• Family Responsibilities: It was submitted that the petitioner is the sole earning member supporting an aged mother suffering from severe medical ailments, has deep roots in society, and has no prior bad antecedents.
• Undertaking: The petitioner assured the court that he was ready to abide by all conditions and cooperate with the trial.

Prosecution Objections

The Public Prosecutor strongly opposed the bail petition, raising the following objections:

• Grave and Heinous Offence: The offences alleged—murder (Section 302 IPC) and attempt to murder (Section 307 IPC)—are exceptionally grave, committed in a public place with deadly weapons during a festival procession.
• Presence of CCTV and Digital Evidence: The prosecution submitted that digital evidence, including CCTV footage collected during investigation, explicitly established the active participation and presence of the petitioner alongside co-accused during the deadly assault.
• Apprehension of Witness Tampering and Flight: The prosecution argued that if enlarged on bail, there was a high likelihood that the petitioner would threaten material eye-witnesses (including injured victims), destroy evidence, or abscond to hamper trial proceedings.

Judicial Findings and Legal Reasoning

The Sessions Court examined the complaint, charge-sheet materials, CCTV footage records, and rival submissions to determine Point No. 1: whether the petitioner had made out sufficient grounds for regular bail.

1. Prima Facie Case and Digital Evidence

Judge Hemanth Kumar C.R. noted that although the investigation was complete and the charge-sheet filed, the case diary contained strong prima facie material demonstrating the active involvement of Accused No. 2. The court specifically highlighted the presence of digital evidence and CCTV footage depicting the petitioner’s participation at the scene of the crime alongside the co-accused group.

2. Gravity of Offence and Public Safety

The court emphasized that Section 302 IPC carries severe statutory penalties, including life imprisonment or the death penalty. The brutal nature of the street assault using longs and daggers during a public gathering underscored the heinousness of the crime.

3. Risk of Witness Intimidation

Given that the prosecution’s case relies heavily on the testimony of injured eyewitnesses (the complainant and his aunt), the court observed that enlarging the petitioner on bail at this stage posed a real threat of witness intimidation, destruction of evidence, and trial disruption.

It remains a settled principle of criminal jurisprudence that pre-trial bail evaluations are based on prima facie evidence and the gravity of charges, without expressing a final opinion on the ultimate merits of the case, which remains subject to full trial.

Final Order

Answering Point No. 1 in the negative, LXV Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge Shri Hemanth Kumar C.R. formally rejected the bail petition on April 6, 2024:

The petition filed by the petitioner/accused No. 2 (Alex alias Alexander) under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is hereby dismissed.