The Court of the XLV Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City (CCH-46), presided over by Sri Manjunatha, B.A., LL.B., delivered a judicial order on April 27, 2024, dismissing 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. 3026/2024 denied regular bail protection to three petitioners—Sri Tejas Kumar T.N. @ Teju (Accused No. 1), Sri Mouneshwara @ Moni (Accused No. 2), and Sri Appa Saheb @ Ajay @ Ajith Makali (Accused No. 3)—who were in judicial custody in connection with Crime No. 137/2024 registered by the Kamakshipalya Police Station, Bengaluru. The petitioners faced prosecution for serious offences punishable under Sections 341 (wrongful restraint), 307 (attempt to murder), 354 (assault or criminal force to woman with intent to outrage her modesty), 504 (intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace), and 509 (word, gesture or act intended to insult the modesty of a woman) read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

Factual Matrix and Prosecution Allegations

The criminal proceedings originated from a formal complaint lodged by Sri M.N. Nagarjun concerning a violent public assault:

• Background and Altercation: According to the complaint, Accused No. 1 frequently abused the complainant’s wife, and when the complainant objected, Accused No. 1 issued criminal life threats.
• The Incident: On March 22, 2024, between 7:00 PM and 7:15 PM, after the complainant’s wife alighted at the Sumanahalli Junction following a shooting assignment, the couple stopped at a nearby tea shop. At that juncture, the accused persons arrived and picked up a quarrel.
• The Attack: Accused No. 1 allegedly assaulted the victim with a long (a lethal weapon), causing injuries to her chest, and stabbed her with a knife on the left side of her flank. Simultaneously, the remaining accused persons assaulted and kicked the complainant, openly outraging the modesty of his wife in public view before fleeing when members of the public gathered. The injured victim was rushed to the hospital for emergency medical treatment.

Details of the Petitioners

• Petitioner No. 1 / Accused No. 1: Sri Tejas Kumar T.N. @ Teju, aged about 21 years, son of Late Narasimhamurthy, residing at 3rd Cross, Sannaki Bayalu, Sumanahalli, Magadi Main Road, Bangalore.
• Petitioner No. 2 / Accused No. 2: Sri Mouneshwara @ Moni, aged about 21 years, son of Late B.C. Mohan, residing at No. 349, 1st Main, Opp. Sollapuradamma Temple, Kottagepalya, Bangalore.
• Petitioner No. 3 / Accused No. 3: Sri Appa Saheb @ Ajay @ Ajith Makali, aged about 22 years, son of Beerappa, residing near SRS Chicken Center, Parimalanagar, Tent Road, Kanteerava Studio, Bangalore.
• Legal Representation: Sri/Smt. R.S. Harishkumar, Advocate
• Prosecution Representation: Learned Public Prosecutor, State by Kamakshipalya Police Station

Submissions Advanced by the Parties

On Behalf of the Petitioners

1. Innocence and False Implication: The defense maintained that the petitioners were entirely innocent, had not committed any offences, and were falsely implicated in the crime through a fabricated case.
2. Readiness to Abide by Conditions: Counsel urged that the petitioners are law-abiding citizens whose continued detention would cause severe hardship to their families, and they were willing to furnish solvent sureties and comply with any conditions imposed by the court.

On Behalf of the Respondent (State)

1. Opposition to Bail: The learned Public Prosecutor filed detailed written objections along with the Investigating Officer’s report, strongly opposing the bail plea.
2. Gravity of Offences: The state contended that the investigation was still ongoing and incomplete, and releasing the petitioners at this stage would pose a grave risk of abscondence, tampering with prosecution witnesses, hampering ongoing investigative processes, and threatening the safety of the complainant and victims.

Judicial Findings and Legal Reasoning

Upon evaluating the case records, hospital records, and rival submissions, Judge Manjunatha recorded definitive findings on Point No. 1:

1. Gravity and Heinous Nature of Offences: The court observed that the accusations involve a heinous public attack, including an attempt to murder (Section 307 IPC) using lethal weapons (long and knife) and outraging the modesty of a woman (Section 354 IPC) in a public place.
2. Risk of Tampering and Interference: Citing the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Kerala v. Mahesh (2021) and Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan (2004), the judge emphasized that when heinous offences are committed, the court must prioritize the nature of the accusation, severity of potential punishment, and the strong apprehension of witness tampering or threats to victims over the mere period of pre-trial custody.
3. Premature Stage of Investigation: Holding that the investigation was still under progress and that releasing the petitioners at this juncture would likely hamper the probe and endanger the safety of the victims, the court concluded that the petitioners failed to make out sufficient grounds for regular bail.

Final Bail Rejection Order

Answering Point No. 1 in the negative, the Sessions Court passed the following order:

• The regular bail petition filed by the petitioners / Accused Nos. 1 to 3 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. in Crime No. 137/2024 of Kamakshipalya Police Station is hereby DISMISSED.