The Court of the LII Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bangalore (CCH-53), presided over by Sri B.G. Pramoda, B.A.L., LL.B., delivered a judicial order on April 15, 2024, allowing a regular bail application filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.). The ruling in Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 3080/2024 extended regular bail protection to Sri Mahendra B.K. @ Mottekanna (Accused No. 2) in connection with Crime No. 172/2024 of the Chandra Layout Police Station, Bengaluru, pending on the file of the XLVI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (ACMM) Court, Bengaluru. The petitioner faced prosecution for alleged offences punishable under Sections 307 (attempt to murder) and 323 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

The criminal proceedings originated from a formal complaint lodged by one Imran Khan concerning an incident that occurred on March 19, 2024. According to the prosecution case, at approximately 7:00 PM on the said date, while the informant was riding his motorcycle near the Arundhathi Nagar Arch, he noticed a group of ten individuals standing near the arch and questioned them about their presence. In response, Accused No. 1 allegedly abused the informant in filthy language and sprayed pepper spray into his eyes. Thereafter, Accused No. 2 (the petitioner) allegedly attacked the informant with a knife, stabbing him on the right side of his back with the intention to cause death, while Accused No. 3 also inflicted knife blows. When the victim collapsed to the ground, Accused No. 4 and other associates reportedly assaulted and kicked him, giving rise to the charge of an attempted murder committed in furtherance of common intention.

Following the registration of Crime No. 172/2024 by the Chandra Layout Police, the petitioner was arrested on March 21, 2024, and subsequently remanded to judicial custody. Seeking enlargement on bail, the 28-year-old petitioner approached the Sessions Court through his legal counsel, Sri Manu B.S., contending that he was entirely innocent, had not committed the alleged offences, and had been falsely implicated by the police. The defense emphasized that the petitioner is a permanent resident of Bengaluru, belongs to a respectable family, is the sole earning member of his household, and is ready to furnish solvent sureties and comply with any stringent conditions imposed by the court.

The bail application was strongly contested by the learned Public Prosecutor, who filed written objections and the Investigating Officer’s report opposing the grant of bail. The state urged that the offences were grave and targeted against public safety, that the accused individuals had admitted their guilt in voluntary statements, and that the petitioner was a habitual offender involved in multiple other criminal cases. The prosecution argued that releasing the petitioner at the active stage of investigation would create a high risk of abscondence, tampering with evidence, threatening witnesses, or committing similar offences in the future.

Upon evaluating the records, case diary, and rival submissions, Judge B.G. Pramoda recorded definitive findings on the points for consideration. The court observed that substantial investigation into the matter had already been completed, with the recovery of the weapons (two knives) effected through the joint pointing-out and voluntary statements of Accused Nos. 2 and 3, and the seizure of blood-stained garments under mahazar. Furthermore, the injured victim had been discharged from the hospital with medical discharge summaries confirming no ongoing danger to life, rendering further custodial interrogation unnecessary. Addressing the prosecution’s contention regarding pending antecedent cases, the court reiterated that bail cannot be denied solely on the ground of other pending allegations, as guilt must be established through due trial in those matters, and an individual can only be categorized as a habitual offender upon legal conviction.

Citing the foundational legal doctrine established by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Balchand @ Baliya (AIR 1977 SC 2447) and reaffirmed in catena of decisions—which dictates that “bail is the rule and jail is an exception” to safeguard personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India—the court concluded that the petitioner’s continued detention was unwarranted. The Sessions Court answered the point for consideration in the affirmative and allowed the regular bail petition filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C.

The court ordered that Sri Mahendra B.K. @ Mottekanna (Accused No. 2) be enlarged on bail in connection with Crime No. 172/2024 of Chandra Layout Police Station, upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 1,00,000/- with one surety for the like sum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Magistrate, subject to the following stringent conditions:

• The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer once a week on Sundays for a period of 3 months or until the completion of the investigation, whichever is earlier, and shall cooperate fully with the investigation and appear whenever called.
• He shall appear before the trial court regularly on all scheduled hearing dates.
• He shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat, or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade them from disclosing facts to the court or police, nor tamper with evidence.
• He shall not commit offences of a similar nature or any other offences in the future.
• He shall furnish correct residential address proof before the trial court.
• He shall not leave India without the previous permission of the court.