In a notable judicial order passed on April 16, 2024, the LXIII Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City (CCH-64), Sri A.V. Patil, B.Com., LL.B., allowed the anticipatory bail application in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 3042/2024. The court granted pre-arrest bail protection to Deepu @ Deepak Anchi (Accused No. 1) in connection with Crime No. 108/2024 registered by the Hulimavu Police Station, Bengaluru. The petitioner was apprehending arrest for offences punishable under Sections 143 (unlawful assembly), 144 (joining unlawful assembly armed with deadly weapon), 147 (rioting), 307 (attempt to murder), 504 (intentional insult), and 506 (criminal intimidation) read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

Factual Matrix and Prosecution Allegations

The criminal proceedings originated from a complaint lodged on March 14, 2024, by Sri Shivu R., son of Ravi Singh, at the Hulimavu Police Station. According to the complainant, he and Puneeth were close friends. About two years prior, Puneeth had quarreled with Deepu @ Deepak Anchi, leading to an ongoing rivalry and frequent altercations between them.

On March 13, 2024, at approximately 3:00 PM, the complainant and Puneeth were drinking tea at a bakery situated at G.R. Apartment, Kammanahalli, Bengaluru, and subsequently moved toward the adjacent grounds. At that time, Accused No. 1 (Deepu) approached Puneeth, questioned him for “staring,” and punched him in the face. When the complainant intervened to break up the fight, Accused No. 1 assaulted him as well.

Moments later, Accused No. 2 (brother of Accused No. 1) along with Accused Nos. 3, 4, and other associates arrived at the spot. The prosecution alleged that Accused No. 1 struck Puneeth on the head and body with a stone with the intention to kill him, while Accused No. 2 used a stick. Accused Nos. 3, 4, and others actively participated in the group assault. Following the attack, the complainant was admitted to Vijayashree Hospital, while Puneeth sustained severe head injuries and was admitted to Sanjay Gandhi Hospital. Based on Shivu’s statement, the police registered Crime No. 108/2024.

The details of the petitioner as per court records are:

• Deepu @ Deepak Anchi (Petitioner / Accused No. 1): Aged about 21 years, son of Rajesh Kumar, residing at No. 95, Near Post Office, Gottigere, Bengaluru – 560 083.

Arguments Advanced on Behalf of the Petitioner

Appearing on behalf of the applicant, learned advocate Sri Parthasarathy presented several grounds seeking pre-arrest protection under Section 438 Cr.P.C.:

• Claim of Innocence and Delay in FIR: The petitioner maintained that he was entirely innocent of the alleged offences, had not abused or assaulted the injured persons, and pointed to an unexplained delay in lodging the FIR (the incident occurred at 3:00 PM on March 13, but the complaint was filed at 6:30 PM on March 14).
• Existence of Counter-Case (Crime No. 109/2024): The defence submitted that a free fight took place in which the complainant group assaulted Accused No. 3 and the petitioner. Accused No. 3 lodged a counter-complaint, leading to the registration of a cross-case in Crime No. 109/2024 against Shivu and Puneeth.
• Medical Evidence of Petitioner’s Injuries: It was brought to the court’s notice that the petitioner also sustained injuries during the incident and underwent medical treatment at Bengaluru Medical College and Research Centre, K.R. Road, Bengaluru.
• Discharge of Injured Persons: The defence highlighted that both injured persons had already been discharged from their respective hospitals and were out of danger.
• Roots in Society and Undertaking: The petitioner is a 21-year-old permanent resident of Gottigere, Bengaluru. He promised to abide by all conditions imposed by the court and furnish reliable sureties.

Objections Raised by the Prosecution

The Public Prosecutor strongly opposed the grant of anticipatory bail, arguing that:

• Prima Facie Attempt to Murder: Case records and witness statements established a prima facie case under Section 307 IPC against Accused No. 1 for launching a deadly stone attack on Puneeth’s head.
• Apprehension of Interference: The prosecution expressed concern that if enlarged on pre-arrest bail, the petitioner might threaten the complainant or injured witnesses, tamper with evidence, or evade police investigation.

Judicial Findings and Detailed Legal Reasoning

The Sessions Court evaluated the complaint, cross-complaint records, medical status reports, and arguments from both sides to decide Point No. 1: whether the petitioner made out a case for pre-arrest protection under Section 438 Cr.P.C.

1. Cross-Cases and Mutual Injuries

Judge A.V. Patil observed that the registration of Crime No. 109/2024 based on Accused No. 3’s complaint confirmed the existence of a counter-case arising out of the same transaction. The court noted that medical records established that the petitioner himself suffered injuries and received treatment at Bengaluru Medical College, indicating that the true sequence of events and exact liability must be evaluated during trial.

2. Discharge of Injured and Nature of Penalties

The court noted the Public Prosecutor’s confirmation that both the complainant (Shivu) and the injured (Puneeth) had been discharged from their respective hospitals with no threat to their lives. While Section 307 IPC is non-bailable, it does not carry mandatory death imprisonment. All other offenses alleged under Sections 143, 144, 147, 504, and 506 IPC are bailable in nature.

3. Protection Against Unnecessary Pre-Trial Detention

Holding that the petitioner is a young local resident with fixed abodes, the court determined that the apprehension of arrest was well-founded following the FIR registration. The court concluded that the interests of the investigating agency could be adequately protected by imposing strict conditions—including regular appearance before the Investigating Officer—rather than denying pre-arrest protection.

It remains a settled principle of criminal jurisprudence that an order deciding an anticipatory bail application is procedural in nature and does not constitute an expression on the ultimate guilt or innocence of the accused, which remains subject to full-fledged trial.

Final Pre-Arrest Bail Order and Imposed Conditions

Answering Point No. 1 in the affirmative, LXIII Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge Sri A.V. Patil allowed the petition filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. and passed the following order:

The bail petition filed by the petitioner under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. is hereby allowed, and anticipatory bail is granted. In the event of his arrest by the Investigating Officer in Crime No. 108/2024 of Hulimavu Police Station, the I.O. is directed to enlarge him on bail on executing a personal bond for Rs. 90,000/- (Rupees Ninety Thousand only) with one surety for the likesum, subject to the following conditions:

1. The petitioner shall appear before the respondent police within 20 days from the date of this order.
2. The petitioner shall not tamper with prosecution witnesses in any manner.
3. The petitioner shall appear before the court during trial and cooperate for the disposal of the case.
4. The petitioner shall not commit offences similar to the offence alleged against him.
5. The petitioner shall appear before the I.O. as and when called for investigation.
6. The petitioner shall furnish an attested copy of his official photo ID proof (such as Aadhaar card) and current residential address proof to the I.O.

Note: This order of anticipatory bail does not in any manner limit or restrict the statutory rights and duties of the police or investigating agency to investigate into the charges against the petitioner.