In a notable judicial order passed on April 1, 2024, the LXII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City (CCH.63), Sri A. Earanna, M.Com., LL.M., allowed the regular bail application filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) in Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 2829/2024. The court enlarged Santhosh @ Santu (Accused) on regular bail in connection with Crime No. 30/2024 registered by the Halasurgate Police Station, Bengaluru. The petitioner was facing prosecution for offences punishable under Sections 506 (criminal intimidation) and 307 (attempt to murder) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
Factual Matrix and Prosecution Allegations
The criminal proceedings originated from a complaint lodged by one Raja at the Halasurgate Police Station.
According to the prosecution case:
- On February 15, 2024, the complainant consumed alcohol at NR Wine Shop and was sitting on the road in front of a Gujari shop near Siddanna Galli, within the jurisdiction of Halasurgate Police Station.
- The petitioner, who was acquainted with the complainant, approached him and requested money to purchase alcohol.
- When the complainant refused to give him money, the petitioner pulled a cutter blade from his pocket and slashed the complainant across his lower stomach and left shoulder.
- The petitioner allegedly shouted that he would kill the complainant before leaving the scene. Passersby immediately rushed the injured complainant to Victoria Hospital, where he was admitted for treatment.
- The Halasurgate Police subsequently registered Crime No. 30/2024 under Sections 506 and 307 IPC and arrested the petitioner, placing him in judicial custody.
The cause title captures the background details of the petitioner:
- Santhosh @ Santu: Aged 26 years, son of Raja.
- Present Address: Near Kempamma Mess, MS Building, KR Circle, Bengaluru.
- Permanent Address: No. 242, Tank Street, Andampallam, Tirunamugam, Tiruvannamalai, Tamil Nadu.
Arguments Advanced on Behalf of the Petitioner
Appearing on behalf of the applicant, learned advocate Sri Kiran S.S. presented several grounds seeking regular bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C.:
- Discharge of Injured Victim: The defence highlighted that the injured complainant had already been successfully treated and discharged from Victoria Hospital, demonstrating that the injuries were no longer life-threatening.
- Completion of Interrogation: Since the petitioner was already in judicial custody and had undergone police interrogation, further custodial detention was unnecessary.
- Non-Capital Offence Threshold: The alleged offences under Sections 506 and 307 IPC do not carry mandatory death sentences, and no prior convictions were recorded against the petitioner.
- Undertaking: The applicant assured the court of his readiness to submit to all court-imposed conditions, mark his attendance before the Investigating Officer, and offer solvent sureties.
Prosecution Objections
The Public Prosecutor strongly opposed the grant of regular bail, filing a statement of objections:
- Slashed with Dangerous Weapon: The prosecution submitted that the petitioner attacked the complainant with a cutter blade in a public street over a monetary dispute, establishing clear intention under Section 307 IPC.
- Flight Risk and Repeat Offending: The prosecution expressed concern that because the petitioner has a permanent residence in Tamil Nadu, he might abscond, fail to appear for trial, or intimidate the complainant if released on bail.
Judicial Findings and Detailed Legal Reasoning
The Sessions Court evaluated the complaint, medical discharge records, case diary entries, and rival submissions to determine Point No. 1: whether the petitioner made out a prima facie case for regular bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C.
1. Medical Recovery and Interrogation Status
Judge A. Earanna observed that it was an undisputed fact that the victim had been discharged from Victoria Hospital. The court held that because the petitioner was already in judicial custody and had been interrogated by the police, further detention would serve no meaningful investigative purpose.
2. Safeguarding Trial Attendance Through Conditions
While acknowledging the prosecution’s concerns regarding the petitioner’s out-of-state permanent address in Tamil Nadu, the court held that flight risk and witness protection could be effectively managed by imposing strict terms—including regular monthly reporting to the police station until the charge-sheet is filed.
Holding that an order deciding a bail application is procedural in nature and does not constitute an expression on the ultimate guilt or innocence of the accused, the court resolved Point No. 1 in the affirmative.
Final Order and Imposed Conditions
Answering Point No. 1 in the affirmative, LXII Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge Sri A. Earanna allowed the petition filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. and passed the following order:
The bail petition filed by the petitioner under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. is hereby allowed in Crime No. 30/2024, subject to the following conditions:
- The petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in Crime No. 30/2024 on executing a personal bond for ₹1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) with two sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the learned 1st ACMM, Bengaluru.
- The petitioner shall not hold any threat to the complainant and shall not tamper with any prosecution witnesses directly or indirectly.
- The petitioner shall furnish his residential address proof and that of his sureties.
- The petitioner shall not indulge in similar types of offences in the future.
- The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer to mark his attendance on every 2nd Saturday of the month until the filing of the charge-sheet.
- If the petitioner fails to obey any of the above-stated conditions, this bail order shall automatically stand canceled.