Bengaluru Court Grants Pre-Arrest Bail to Safeer in 2019 Dacoity Preparation Case

The Court of the LXIV Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City (CCH-65), presided over by Smt. Kalpana M.S., B.Sc., LL.M., PGD-CLCF, allowed the anticipatory bail application filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) in Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 2976/2024 on April 4, 2024. The judicial order extended pre-arrest bail protection to 24-year-old Safeer (Accused No. 1) in connection with Sessions Case No. 346/2020, arising out of Crime No. 249/2019 registered by the Kumaraswamy Layout Police Station, Bengaluru. The petitioner faced apprehension of arrest under Non-Bailable Warrants (NBW) issued in ongoing trial proceedings for alleged offences punishable under Sections 399 (making preparation to commit dacoity) and 402 (assembling for purpose of committing dacoity) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

Factual Background and Prosecution Allegations

The criminal proceedings originated from a police raid conducted on September 10, 2019, at approximately 7:15 PM. According to the prosecution charge sheet:

Police Raid: The Police Inspector of Kumaraswamy Layout Police Station received credible information regarding an assembly of five individuals carrying deadly weapons near Abdul Kalam Park, 11th Main, ISRO Layout, Bengaluru.
Seizure and Arrest: A police team, accompanied by independent panch witnesses, raided the location, apprehended five individuals, and seized weapons from their possession under a spot mahazar.
Charge Sheet: Following preliminary inquiries, Crime No. 249/2019 was registered, an investigation was conducted, and a final charge sheet was submitted to the court, after which the case was committed to the Sessions Court as S.C. No. 346/2020.

The details of the petitioner as per court records are:

Safeer (Petitioner / Accused No. 1): Aged about 24 years, son of Tanveer Pasha, residing at No. 106, Masidi Road, Anjanapura, Harinagara, Konanakunte, Bengaluru.

Arguments Advanced on Behalf of the Petitioner

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

Innocence and False Implication: The petitioner maintained that he was entirely innocent of the alleged offences and had been falsely implicated in the case.
Explanation for Absence: The defense pointed out that the petitioner had previously been enlarged on bail during the crime stage and appeared regularly. However, during the COVID-19 pandemic, he lost contact with his legal counsel and missed hearing dates due to illness and Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs), making his absence non-intentional.
Completion of Investigation: The police investigation was fully complete, the charge sheet had been filed, and the case was committed to the Sessions Court, rendering further custodial interrogation unnecessary.
Local Roots and Parity: Co-accused persons had already been enlarged on bail. The petitioner is a permanent resident of Bengaluru with no prior criminal antecedents and was willing to abide by all court-imposed conditions.

Prosecution Objections and State Arguments

The Public Prosecutor strongly opposed the grant of anticipatory bail by submitting a formal statement of objections along with a report from the Investigating Officer:

Gravity of Allegations: The prosecution emphasized that the charges under IPC Sections 399 and 402 involve serious allegations of armed preparation for dacoity.
Proclaimed Offender Status: The state submitted that because the petitioner defaulted on court appearances, warrants had been issued against him, and granting pre-arrest protection to a proclaimed offender might lead to further trial delays or non-attendance.

Judicial Findings and Legal Precedents Cited

Upon evaluating the FIR, charge sheet records, order sheet entries, and rival submissions, Judge Kalpana M.S. evaluated the petitioner’s entitlement to pre-arrest relief under Section 438 Cr.P.C..

1. Non-Capital Penalties and Stage of Trial

The court observed that the alleged offences under Sections 399 and 402 IPC do not carry mandatory death or life imprisonment sentences. The court noted that whether the accused persons were actually preparing to commit a crime in a public area situated 2 km from the police station remained a matter to be established through trial testimony.

2. Application of Constitutional Principles

The court cited landmark judicial doctrines governing pre-trial liberty:

State of Rajasthan v. Balchand [(1977) AIR SC 2447]: Reaffirmed the foundational legal principle that “Bail is the rule and jail is an exception” under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI [(2022) 10 SCC 51]: Highlighted guidelines emphasizing the balance between individual liberty, avoiding unjustifiable pre-trial detention, and securing the accused’s presence through reporting conditions.

3. Benefit of Prior Bail and Local Ties

The court observed that the benefit of earlier bail generally extends throughout the trial and that the petitioner’s absence was tied to pandemic-era communication lapses. Holding that the petitioner is a permanent resident of Bengaluru with no reported criminal antecedents, the court concluded that the prosecution’s concerns could be managed by imposing strict conditions.

Final Pre-Arrest Bail Order and Imposed Conditions

Answering the point for consideration in the affirmative, the LXIV Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge allowed the petition filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. and passed the following order:

In the event of his arrest or appearance in connection with S.C. No. 346/2020 (arising out of Crime No. 249/2019 of Kumaraswamy Layout Police Station), Safeer (Accused No. 1) shall be enlarged on bail upon executing a personal bond for ₹1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) with two sureties for the likesum, subject to the following conditions:

The petitioner shall furnish official address proof documents for himself and his sureties at the time of executing bonds.
The petitioner shall not leave India without prior permission of the trial court.
The petitioner shall appear before the trial court on all dates of hearing without fail.
The petitioner shall not tamper with prosecution evidence or influence prosecution witnesses, directly or indirectly, in any manner.
In the event of any change in residential address, the petitioner and his sureties shall intimate the same to the trial court immediately without fail.

Note: Violation of any of the above conditions shall entitle the prosecution to seek cancellation of bail.