The Court of the LXII Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City (CCH-63), presided over by Sri A. Earanna, M.Com., L.L.M., delivered a judicial order on April 19, 2024, dismissing an anticipatory bail application filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.). The ruling in Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 2794/2024 denied pre-arrest bail protection to Sri Umez Ahammed (Accused No. 2) in connection with Crime No. 460/2011 (subsequently registered as C.C. No. 7360/2012) of the Mico Layout Police Station, Bengaluru, pending before the trial court. The petitioner faced prosecution for serious 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 Matrix and Prosecution Allegations

The criminal proceedings originated from a police raid conducted over a decade prior:

• The Incident: According to the prosecution case, on August 22, 2011, Accused Nos. 1 to 5 assembled behind the Lakshmi Balaji Theatre on S.G. Palya Main Road, Bengaluru, armed with deadly weapons and parked two motorcycles, making active preparations to commit dacoity. Consequently, the Mico Layout Police registered Crime No. 460/2011 and subsequently filed a charge sheet under C.C. No. 7360/2012.
• Abscondence and Proclamation: After the case was committed to the Sessions Court, process was issued. Although the petitioner (Accused No. 2) had previously secured bail in 2018 (Crl. Misc. No. 10135/2018), he subsequently stopped appearing before the court. Despite repeated issuance of summons and warrants, the accused evaded appearance, leading the court to issue a formal proclamation under Section 82 of the Cr.P.C., prompting the petitioner to file for anticipatory bail apprehending imminent arrest.

Details of the Petitioner

• Name: Sri Umez Ahammed (Petitioner / Accused No. 2)
• Father’s Name: Sri Raffiq Ahammed
• Age: About 22 years
• Residential Address: No. 22/2, 1st Main, 4th Cross, Maruti Layout, BTM 2nd Stage, Bengaluru – 560 029.
• Legal Representation: Smt. Sudha G., Advocate
• Prosecution Representation: Learned Public Prosecutor, State by Mico Layout Police Station

Submissions Advanced by the Parties

On Behalf of the Petitioner

1. Unintentional Absence and COVID-19 Constraints: The defense maintained that the petitioner’s absence from court proceedings was not intentional. Counsel argued that non-compliance with court directives resulted from the unexpected lockdown periods during the COVID-19 pandemic and a lack of communication between the petitioner and his erstwhile legal counsel.
2. Willingness to Cooperate: The petitioner undertook to appear regularly on all future hearing dates without fail until the conclusion of the trial, seeking the protection of anticipatory bail.

On Behalf of the Respondent (State)

1. Opposition to Pre-Arrest Bail: The learned Public Prosecutor strongly opposed the application by filing detailed objections, highlighting that the case dates back to 2011.
2. Flagrant Disregard of Court Orders: The state contended that the accused had deliberately jumped bail, ignored repeated warrants, and forced the issuance of a proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. Granting anticipatory bail to an absconding accused, the prosecution urged, would severely prejudice the administration of justice and risk further evasion of trial.

Judicial Findings and Legal Reasoning

Upon evaluating the case history, order sheets, and rival submissions, Judge A. Earanna recorded definitive findings on Point No. 1:

1. Breach of Bail Conditions: The court observed that the petitioner had previously been enlarged on bail in December 2018 and was under a solemn legal obligation to follow court directions, execute bonds, and attend proceedings regularly. Instead, he chose to remain continuously absent for years.
2. Abuse of Judicial Process: The judge emphasized that the issuance of non-bailable warrants followed by a formal proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. was necessitated entirely by the petitioner’s deliberate concealment and persistent failure to respect judicial mandates.
3. Unsuitability for Discretionary Relief: Holding that an accused who treats court orders with impunity and remains a proclaimed offender is not entitled to extraordinary discretionary relief under Section 438 Cr.P.C., the court dismissed the petition.

Final Bail Rejection Order

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

• The anticipatory bail petition filed by the petitioner / Accused No. 2 under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. is hereby DISMISSED.