In a highly unusual case that reads like a crime thriller, the XXXIII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge & Special Judge (NDPS) in Bengaluru has granted regular bail to three accused individuals—Asif Pasha @ Asif, Suhail Khan @ Suheal, and Babu @ Ravi Chandra—who are implicated in a conspiracy to allegedly plant opium in a rival’s vehicle to ensure his arrest. The bail order, passed on March 26, 2024, by Judge Smt. B.S. Jayashree, concerns Crl. Misc. No. 2816/2024, which sought bail under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C.
The petitioners, Asif Pasha @ Asif (Accused No. 3), Suhail Khan @ Suheal (Accused No. 4), and Babu @ Ravi Chandra (Accused No. 7), were facing charges under Section 18(b) of the NDPS Act (in relation to the seized opium) and Sections 195 (Giving or fabricating false evidence with intent to procure conviction of offence punishable with imprisonment for life or seven years or upwards), 201 (Causing disappearance of evidence of offence), 120B (Criminal conspiracy), and 212 (Harbouring offender) read with Section 34 of the IPC. These charges stem from Cr. No. 37/2024 of the R.R. Nagar Police Station.
The Complex Case Background
The case initially began with the arrest of Accused No. 1, Chogaram @ Suresh Patil, on February 2, 2024, after CCB police allegedly seized 428 grams of opium from the dicky of his Honda Activa scooter. The police had acted on a tip-off about a person selling contraband near the Jawaharlal Nehru road.
During the initial stages of investigation and police custody, Accused No. 1, Chogaram, provided a pivotal statement that drastically altered the course of the probe. He retracted his initial admission, claiming that he had not stored the contraband and that certain persons with enmity towards him had implanted the opium in his scooter. Chogaram alleged that the conspiracy was fueled by bad blood arising from a previous incident where his son was allegedly kidnapped, leading to a separate case (Cr. No. 250/2023) registered against one of the present co-accused, Punaram (Accused No. 2), the brother of Chogaram, under Sections 364A and 394 of the IPC.
Investigation Reveals a Conspiracy
Acting on Chogaram’s request, the Investigating Officer (I.O.) checked CCTV footage near his residence. The footage revealed two persons moving suspiciously near Chogaram’s house in a Maruti Swift car, without a number plate, in the early morning hours of February 2, 2024.
Further investigation into the car’s movements, including a stop at a petrol bunk where an online payment was made, led the I.O. to the PhonePe number of Arun Kumar (Accused No. 5). The subsequent analysis of Call Detail Records (CDRs) exposed frequent conversations among Arun Kumar, Punaram (A2), Asif (A3), and Suhail (A4).
Accused No. 5, Arun Kumar, was subsequently arrested and, in his voluntary statement, allegedly confessed that he, along with Ravi (Accused No. 6), had kept the opium in Chogaram’s scooter as per the instructions of Punaram (A2), the petitioners (Asif/A3, Suhail/A4, Babu/A7), and others, who had conspired to frame Chogaram. Arun Kumar detailed the entire plot, including being given a tiffin box containing the opium by Punaram, and being instructed to plant it to trouble Chogaram in his business. The conspiracy was allegedly hatched at Punaram’s office. The later arrest of Accused No. 6, Ravi, also yielded a corroborating statement.
Grounds for Granting Bail
The Court noted that Accused No. 1, Chogaram, was already enlarged on bail earlier due to the compelling evidence suggesting he was falsely implanted in the case. This fact was crucial in establishing the premise that the contraband was planted.
While the anticipatory bail applications of A2, A3, A4, and A7 had been rejected previously, the present petition for regular bail was filed after the petitioners were arrested on March 13, 2024, and subjected to custodial interrogation.
The Court observed the following key points in favour of granting bail:
- Custodial Interrogation Complete: The petitioners have been arrested, their voluntary statements recorded, and the police have collected all the key incriminatory materials, including CCTV footage and CDRs. Further detention is therefore not warranted.
- Nature of Alleged Offence: The core offence alleged against the petitioners is conspiracy and fabrication of evidence, which are not punishable with death or imprisonment for life.
- Investigation Status: The major portion of the investigation is concluded.
- Risk Mitigation: The Court determined that imposing stringent conditions would adequately prevent the petitioners from absconding or tampering with the investigation and trial.
Finding sufficient grounds, the Court allowed the petition.
Strict Conditions Imposed
The petitioners were ordered to be released on bail upon executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Only) each, with one surety for the like sum. The bail is subject to the following strict conditions:
- Attendance to I.O.: The petitioners must appear before the concerned I.O. once a month, preferably on the first Monday of every month between 10:00 a.m. and 2:00 p.m., until the filing of the charge sheet or further orders.
- Jurisdiction: They shall not leave the jurisdiction of the court without prior permission.
- No Tampering/Absconding: They shall not tamper with witnesses or abscond.
- Cooperation: They shall cooperate with the I.O. for the investigation.
- No Similar Offence: They shall not commit similar or any other offence while on bail.
- ID Proof: They must furnish their photo ID proof and local address proof document, along with the photo ID proof of their surety, before the court.
- Court Appearances: They shall appear before the court on all hearing dates.
- Cancellation Clause: Breach of any condition will entail the automatic cancellation of bail.
The ruling highlights the distinction between the necessity of custody during the initial evidence gathering phase and the continued requirement for detention once interrogation is complete, especially when the punishment for the alleged offences falls below the most severe category.