In a significant judicial order delivered on April 8, 2024, the LIX Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge (CCH-60) at Bengaluru, Sri K.S. Vijaya, B.Com, LL.M., dismissed the regular bail application filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) in Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 2882/2024. The court refused to grant regular bail to Chandrakumar @ Chandra (Accused) in connection with S.C. No. 474/2021 (arising out of Crime No. 12/2021) registered by the Halasurugate Police Station for an offence punishable under Section 302 (murder) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
Factual Matrix and Prosecution Allegations
The criminal proceedings originated from an incident that occurred in the early hours of January 10, 2021, within the jurisdictional limits of the Halasurugate Police Station in Bengaluru.
According to the case recorded by the prosecution, at approximately 12:30 AM on January 10, 2021, the deceased summoned the accused, Chandrakumar @ Chandra, with the intention of having unnatural sexual intercourse with him. In the course of the event, an altercation ensued, during which the accused assaulted the deceased on the head with a heavy stone. As a result of the severe injuries sustained during the assault, the victim succumbed at the scene.
Following the incident, the Halasurugate Police registered Crime No. 12/2021 under Section 302 IPC. The petitioner was arrested on January 10, 2021, and remanded to judicial custody. Upon completion of the investigation, the police filed a charge-sheet, and the case was committed for trial as S.C. No. 474/2021.
The details of the petitioner as per court records are:
- Chandrakumar @ Chandra: Aged about 32 years, son of Veeranna, residing at Soppina Market, Cottonpete Main Road, Bengaluru.
Arguments Advanced on Behalf of the Petitioner
Appearing on behalf of the applicant, learned advocate Sri Pavan Kumar G. presented the following grounds seeking regular bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C.:
- Assertion of Innocence: The petitioner maintained that he was entirely innocent of the alleged crime and had been falsely implicated by the police.
- Contention on Intent and Section 302 IPC: Defence counsel argued that even if the allegations made in the charge-sheet were accepted on face value, the circumstances surrounding the incident would not attract the severe charge of murder under Section 302 IPC.
- Prolonged Custody: Attention was drawn to the fact that the petitioner had been in judicial custody since his arrest on January 10, 2021.
Prosecution Objections
The Public Prosecutor strongly opposed the grant of regular bail, filing detailed objections:
- Prima Facie Material and Ongoing Trial: The investigating agency had completed the investigation and filed a comprehensive charge-sheet. Crucially, trial proceedings were underway, and material prosecution witnesses had already been examined before the trial court.
- Supportive Witness Testimony: The prosecution pointed out that key material witnesses examined during the trial supported the prosecution’s case, establishing strong prima facie evidence against the accused.
- Gravity and Public Impact: The alleged offence under Section 302 IPC carries severe statutory penalties, including life imprisonment or the death penalty, and involves significant public impact.
- Risk of Absconding and Re-offending: The prosecution expressed serious apprehension that if enlarged on bail, the petitioner might commit similar offences or abscond to evade trial.
Judicial Findings and Detailed Legal Reasoning
The Sessions Court called for and examined the trial records in S.C. No. 474/2021 to determine Point No. 1: whether the petitioner had made out sufficient grounds for regular bail.
1. Stage of Trial and Weight of Deposed Evidence
Judge K.S. Vijaya observed that trial in S.C. No. 474/2021 was actively underway. Upon perusing the trial records, the court noted that several material witnesses had already deposed before the court and firmly supported the prosecution’s version. The court held that the recorded evidence established strong prima facie material proving the allegations against the petitioner.
2. Lack of Permanent Address and Flight Risk
The court paid specific attention to the cause title of the petition, which recorded the petitioner’s residence as “Soppina Market (Vegetable Market), Cottonpete Main Road, Bengaluru.” The court observed that this address did not constitute a permanent residential address. Given the lack of verified permanent roots in the locality, the court held that there was a high likelihood of the petitioner absconding if released on bail, making it difficult for the prosecution to secure his presence for the remainder of the trial.
3. Gravity of Offence and Trial Continuity
Highlighting the heinous nature of the alleged murder charge under Section 302 IPC, the presence of credible testimonial evidence on record, and the genuine risk of flight, the court concluded that the petitioner was not entitled to bail at this stage of trial.
It remains a settled principle of criminal jurisprudence that an order deciding a bail application during an ongoing trial is procedural and does not constitute an expression on the final judgment of guilt or innocence, which remains subject to the full trial outcome.
Final Order
Answering Point No. 1 in the negative, C/C LVI Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge Sri K.S. Vijaya formally rejected the bail petition on April 8, 2024:
The petition filed by the petitioner/accused, Chandrakumar @ Chandra, under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is hereby dismissed.