Bengaluru, June 28, 2022 – In a significant development, the LII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, has granted bail to three accused individuals, Sri. Bablu Paswan, Sri. Bola Paswan, and Sri. Sridhar Paswan, in connection with a case registered by the Hulimavu Police Station. The accused were seeking relief under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) in Crime No. 120/2022, concerning offenses punishable under Sections 454 (Lurking house-trespass or house-breaking in order to commit offense punishable with imprisonment), 457 (Lurking house-trespass or house-breaking by night in order to commit offense punishable with imprisonment), and 308 (Attempt to commit culpable homicide) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

The bail order, pronounced by Sri. B.G. Pramoda, the presiding Judge, underscores the legal principle that “bail is a rule and jail is an exception,” a doctrine upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in cases like Balachandh @ Baliya. This principle is paramount for safeguarding the fundamental right to life and liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

Background of the Case and Petitioner’s Plea

The case, bearing Crl. Misc. No. 5925/2022, involved a complaint filed by one Tajmul Basha, leading to the registration of an FIR against unknown persons. The petitioners—Bablu Paswan (aged 26), Bola Paswan (aged 36), and Sridhar Paswan (aged 58), all residents of Bihar—were subsequently arrested by the respondent police on April 27, 2022, and remanded to judicial custody.

Appearing before the Court, the petitioners, through their counsel Sri. Rakshith R., contended that they were innocent and had been falsely implicated in the crime. They asserted that they have no criminal antecedents and were prepared to abide by any terms and conditions the court might impose for their enlargement on bail, including furnishing surety. The allegations detailed in the remand application stated that the petitioners committed theft of golden articles and cash from the informant’s locked house on April 24, 2022, when the informant was away in Hyderabad.

Prosecution’s Objections and Court’s Analysis

The Learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the bail plea, filing objections along with the Investigating Officer’s (I.O.) report. The prosecution argued that the offense was grave in nature and against society. Crucially, the prosecution highlighted that the petitioners are permanent residents of Bihar and, if enlarged on bail, there was a high possibility of them absconding, committing similar offenses, threatening witnesses, or destroying evidence, thereby hampering the ongoing investigation.

After considering the arguments from both sides and perusing the material on record, the Court proceeded to evaluate the merits of the application. The Judge noted that the offenses alleged against the petitioners—Sections 454, 457, and 308 of the IPC—are not exclusively punishable with death or imprisonment for life and are, in fact, triable by a Magistrate.

A key factor influencing the Court’s decision was the status of the investigation. The I.O.’s report confirmed that certain stolen golden articles had already been seized by conducting a mahazar (spot inspection report) and were identified by the informant. Furthermore, the voluntary statements of the petitioners and the mahazar of the incident’s location had also been recorded. Significantly, the Court observed that the remand application itself stated that the petitioners were not required for further investigation of the case. With the petitioners already in judicial custody since April 27, 2022, the Court determined that the custodial interrogation was no longer necessary for the continuation of the investigation.

Imposing Stringent Conditions

Addressing the prosecution’s primary apprehension regarding the petitioners being non-residents of Bengaluru (Bihar), the Court ruled that bail could not be rejected solely on this ground. The Judge concluded that the presence of the petitioners could be effectively secured for both investigation and trial by imposing suitable and stringent terms and conditions.

Consequently, the Court allowed the petition, enlarging the three accused on bail under the following terms:

1. Personal Bond and Surety: Each petitioner must execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Only) with one local surety for the likesum each.
2. Cash Surety: Additionally, each petitioner must furnish a cash surety for Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only).
3. Verification of Surety: The Learned Magistrate was specifically directed to obtain a report from the Investigating Officer regarding the genuineness of the surety and his property before accepting it.

Further Stringent Conditions for Bail

The bail was made subject to five further conditions to ensure the integrity of the judicial process:

1. Cooperation with Investigation: The petitioners must appear before the Investigating Officer once every 15 days until the completion of the investigation and whenever called for.
2. No Tampering with Evidence: The petitioners are strictly prohibited from directly or indirectly making any inducement, threat, or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case to dissuade them from disclosing facts or to hamper the evidence.
3. Restriction on Travel: The petitioners shall not leave India without the prior permission of the Court.
4. No Commission of Future Offenses: The petitioners shall not commit any similar or any other offenses in the future.
5. Cancellation Clause: Violation of any of the aforementioned terms and conditions would entitle the court to cancel the bail.

This judicial decision emphasizes the delicate balance between securing the liberty of the accused and ensuring the proper administration of justice, relying on strict conditions to mitigate the risk of flight or evidence tampering. The case will now proceed for further investigation and eventual trial before the 5th ACMM Court, Bangalore.