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 2, 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. 2929/2024 extended regular bail protection to Sri Thimmappa (Accused No. 1) in connection with Crime No. 108/2024 of the Rajagopalanagar Police Station, Bengaluru, pending on the file of the XXXI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (ACMM) Court, Bengaluru. The petitioner faced prosecution for alleged offences punishable under Sections 420 (cheating), 341 (wrongful restraint), 307 (attempt to murder), and 323 (voluntarily causing hurt) read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

Factual Matrix and Prosecution Allegations

The criminal proceedings originated from a formal complaint lodged by one Mahammad Kunhi concerning an incident on March 21, 2024:

• Dispute at Petrol Service Station: According to the prosecution case, at approximately 10:40 AM on the said date, at the BRS (HP) Service Station belonging to Accused No. 4, the informant’s brother asked Accused Nos. 1 to 3 to provide proper petrol and the corresponding bill.
• Murderous Assault: Feeling angered by the query, Accused Nos. 1 to 3 allegedly assaulted the brother of the informant with an iron rod with the intention to commit murder, causing severe injuries. Upon being informed, the informant rushed to the spot, shifted the injured individual to the hospital, and questioned Accused No. 4 (the petrol bunk owner) regarding the incident. Accused No. 4 allegedly abused the informant in filthy language and issued criminal life threats alongside the other accused persons.

Details of the Petitioner

• Name: Sri Thimmappa (Petitioner / Accused No. 1)
• Father’s Name: Late Mariyappa
• Age: About 52 years
• Residential Address: No. 716, 5th Cross, Near Good Hab Public School, Infront of Ganesha Temple, Kasturi Extension, Bengaluru.
• Legal Representation: Sri Siddaiah, Advocate

Submissions Advanced by the Parties

On Behalf of the Petitioner

1. Innocence and False Implication: The defense maintained that the petitioner was entirely innocent, had not committed any offence, and was falsely implicated in the crime.
2. Personal Status: Counsel emphasized that the petitioner is a permanent resident of Bengaluru, belongs to a respectable family, is a law-abiding citizen, serves as the sole breadwinner for his household, and is fully prepared to furnish solvent sureties and abide by any stringent conditions imposed by the court.

On Behalf of the Respondent (State)

1. Grave Nature of Offence: The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail plea by filing written objections and the Investigating Officer’s report, urging that the offences were grave and directed against societal safety, involving a direct murderous assault with an iron rod.
2. Risk of Interference: The state contended that releasing the petitioner at the active stage of investigation would create a high risk of abscondence, tampering with evidence, threatening prosecution witnesses, or committing similar offences in the future.

Judicial Findings and Legal Reasoning

Upon evaluating the case records, remand applications, and rival submissions, Judge B.G. Pramoda recorded definitive findings on Point No. 1:

1. Completion of Substantial Investigation: The court observed that substantial investigation had already been carried out, including drawing up the spot mahazar, recording voluntary statements, and recovering the alleged weapon (iron rod) through the pointing-out of Accused Nos. 1 and 2. Furthermore, the injured victim had already been discharged from the hospital, with medical records confirming no ongoing threat or danger to life, rendering further custodial interrogation unnecessary.
2. Constitutional Doctrine of Liberty: Citing the landmark legal doctrine laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Balchand @ Baliya (AIR 1977 SC 2447)—which reaffirms that “bail is the rule and jail is an exception” under Article 21 of the Constitution of India—the court held that continued pre-trial detention was uncalled for, and the prosecution’s apprehensions could be effectively addressed through stringent conditions.

Final Regular Bail Order and Conditions Imposed

Answering Point No. 1 in the affirmative, the Sessions Court allowed the petition filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C.

The court ordered that Sri Thimmappa (Accused No. 1) be enlarged on bail in connection with Crime No. 108/2024 of Rajagopalanagar Police Station, upon executing a personal bond for ₹1,00,000/- with one surety for the like sum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Magistrate, subject to the following strict conditions:

1. Investigative Cooperation: The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when called upon during the course of the investigation and shall cooperate fully with the proceedings.
2. Trial Attendance: He shall appear before the trial court regularly on all hearing dates during the trial.
3. No Witness Tampering: 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.
4. Non-Recidivism: He shall not commit offences of a similar nature or any other offences in the future.
5. Address Proof: He shall furnish correct residential address proof before the trial court.
6. Travel Restriction: He shall not leave India without the previous permission of the court.