Anticipatory Bail Denied: Accused Chethan K.’s Plea in CC.No.6743/2020 Dismissed by LII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru
In a significant order delivered on April 20, 2024, the LII Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-53), presided over by Sri. B.G. Pramoda, dismissed the petition for anticipatory bail filed by Chethan K., who is facing trial for serious offenses including attempt to murder. The ruling, stemming from Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 3166/2024, underscores the judicial stance against granting pre-arrest bail to an accused who has previously violated bail conditions and been declared an absconder.
Background of the Case
Chethan K., son of Krishnamurthy and a resident of Agrahara Dasarahalli, Bengaluru, is listed as Accused No. 2 in the charge sheet filed by the Magadi Road Police Station. The case, originally registered as Cr. No. 34/2020, pertains to offenses under Sections 307 (Attempt to murder), 143 (Unlawful assembly), 146 (Rioting), 148 (Rioting, armed with deadly weapon) read with Section 149 (Every member of unlawful assembly guilty of offence committed in prosecution of common object) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). Following the investigation, the police filed a charge sheet, leading to the case being registered as CC. No. 6743/2020 before the 3rd Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (ACMM), Bengaluru.
The Petitioner’s Plea
The petitioner, Chethan K., approached the Sessions Court under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.), seeking anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest. Represented by Sri. Manohara, Advocate, the petitioner claimed innocence, stating that he had not committed any offense as alleged. He asserted that he is a permanent resident with deep roots in society and has no bad antecedents, arguing that there was no specific overt act attributed to him in the case.
Crucially, the petition disclosed that Chethan K. had previously been granted regular bail in the same case vide Crl. Misc. No. 3375/2020. His reason for subsequently failing to appear before the trial court was attributed to his parents’ ill health, necessitating a trip to Kerala for their treatment, which prevented him from attending court and contacting his advocate. He assured the court of his willingness to abide by any terms and conditions imposed for his enlargement on bail and his readiness to offer surety.
Prosecution’s Strong Objection
The Learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the anticipatory bail application. The objection highlighted the gravity of the offenses, describing them as “heinous and against to the society.” The key point of contention was the petitioner’s past conduct. The prosecution pointed out that Chethan K. had already been granted regular bail in Crl. Misc. No. 3375/2020 but had subsequently failed to comply with the bail conditions by absconding.
The court records indicated that due to his non-appearance, a warrant was issued against the petitioner, followed by a proclamation warrant. Furthermore, the trial court had also issued an attachment warrant for his properties under Sections 82 and 83 of the Cr.P.C., indicating the severity of his absconding status. The Public Prosecutor argued that if enlarged on bail, Chethan K. would likely abscond again, delaying the trial, and might threaten the informant and other prosecution witnesses, thus urging the court to reject the petition.
Judicial Reasoning and Order
After hearing arguments from both sides and perusing the records, the Court proceeded to analyze the maintainability of the application. The central issue before the court was whether the petitioner had made out sufficient grounds for granting anticipatory bail under Section 438 of Cr.P.C.
The Court’s reasoning, detailed in the order, focused on the ineligibility of a previously arrested and released person to seek anticipatory bail in the same matter. The LII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge noted that anticipatory bail under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. is a protection available only in case of apprehension of arrest by the police for a non-bailable offense. The court explicitly stated: “The protection u/Sec.438 of Cr.P.C. is not available to the accused after his arrest.”
The record clearly demonstrated that Chethan K. was previously arrested during the crime stage, was taken into judicial custody, and was subsequently released on regular bail by the trial court. His current predicament arose not from a fresh apprehension of arrest, but from his failure to appear before the trial court, leading to the issuance of a non-bailable warrant, proclamation, and attachment of property.
The Judge observed that the petitioner, without surrendering before the trial court and seeking a necessary order for the recall of the warrant, had filed the present petition for anticipatory bail. This conduct was seen as a clear violation of the previously imposed bail condition, leading the court to conclude that the petitioner is “of absconding nature.”
In its concluding remarks, the Court determined that the anticipatory bail petition was not maintainable under the circumstances. The court held that the petitioner must first surrender before the trial court and seek a proper order from that court. Consequently, the discretion to grant anticipatory bail could not be exercised in favor of Chethan K.
The petition filed by the petitioner under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. was therefore dismissed by the Court, leaving Chethan K. to face the non-bailable and attachment warrants issued against him by the trial court. This ruling serves as a strong reminder that the relief of anticipatory bail is not a mechanism for circumventing the consequences of violating regular bail conditions and absconding from justice.
SEO Keywords: Anticipatory Bail, Chethan K., Section 438 Cr.P.C., Attempt to Murder, IPC 307, Regular Bail Violation, Absconding Accused, Bangalore Court Order, CC.No.6743/2020, Judicial Custody, LII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge.