Bengaluru, India — In a stern order, the LXI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge (CCH-62) in Bengaluru, Judge Sri R. Ravi, has rejected the anticipatory bail application filed by Darshan N (Accused No. 1) in a case involving charges of kidnapping for ransom and dacoity. The judgment, delivered on September 2, 2023, dismissed the petition, Crl. Misc. No. 8168/2023, citing the heinous nature of the alleged offences, which carry potential penalties of death or life imprisonment.
The petitioner, Darshan N, S/o Nagesh B.S., aged about 20 years, was seeking protection from arrest in connection with Cr. No. 329/2023 registered by the Girinagara Police Station. The charges leveled against him and co-accused fall under several grave sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), including Section 323 (Voluntarily causing hurt), Section 324 (Voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means), Section 364A (Kidnapping for ransom, etc.), Section 395 (Dacoity), Section 506 (Criminal intimidation), and Section 149 (Every member of unlawful assembly guilty of offence committed).
Prosecution’s Case of Kidnapping and Robbery
The prosecution, represented by the Public Prosecutor, strongly opposed the bail plea, presenting materials that prima facie disclosed the petitioner’s involvement in the alleged crimes.
The specific allegations outlined in the FIR and complaint detail a disturbing sequence of events that occurred on August 8, 2023, at approximately 8:30 PM. The court noted that Darshan N and the other accused persons allegedly called the complainant and his two friends with the explicit intention of kidnapping them for ransom and committing dacoity.
The accused are said to have taken the victims on different bikes to various locations, including Ittumadu, R.R. Nagar, and Gobal College Village. During this time, they allegedly assaulted the victims with their hands. The robbery aspect of the crime included forcefully taking a gold chain weighing 10 grams from the complainant and approximately ₹700/- from his purse. Following the commission of these acts, the accused reportedly threatened the victims not to lodge a complaint.
Petitioner’s Defense and Court’s Rejection
Darshan N, through his counsel Sri. Naveen K.E., argued for anticipatory bail, asserting his innocence and claiming he was not present at the spot of the incident. He alleged that the complainant, in collusion with the police, had lodged a false complaint motivated by a personal grudge involving a girl named Rassi. The petitioner emphasized his lack of criminal antecedents, his deep roots in society, and his status as the sole earning member supporting aged parents, a wife, and children.
However, the Court found the prosecution’s objections to hold substantial weight. The materials placed on record, including the Investigation Officer’s report, clearly suggested that the petitioner and his co-accused acted with the intention to extract money, assaulting and kidnapping the victims on a public road.
The key determinant in the rejection was the gravity of the offences charged. The Court highlighted that the petitioner faced charges under Section 364A (Kidnapping for ransom) and Section 395 (Dacoity).
Judicial Precedent and Severity of Punishment
Judge Ravi underscored the severity of the punishment prescribed for these offences, noting that they “carries a punishment of death or imprisonment for life.” This finding significantly limits the court’s discretion to grant anticipatory bail.
The Court relied on established judicial precedents to justify its decision:
- ILR 2016 KAR 1516 & 2010 SCC 496: These rulings mandate that when considering bail applications in heinous offences, the court must carefully evaluate the prima facie materials, the existence of reasonable grounds, and the severity of the potential punishment.
- Srikanth S/o. Pandu V/s. State of Karnataka (dated 31.08.2017): Citing this Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka judgment, the order explicitly noted that “Since the offence under Section 364(A) of IPC is punishable with death or imprisonment for life then it is not a fit case to exercise the discretion in favour of the accused for grant of bail.”
Furthermore, the Court accepted the prosecution’s concern that since the petitioner and Accused No. 2 are currently absconding, there is a high “likelihood of threatening the complainant & tampering of the prosecution witnesses.”
Concluding that the petitioner had failed to make out a “cogent case with sufficient grounds,” the LXI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge dismissed the petition, paving the way for the Girinagara Police to proceed with the arrest and custodial interrogation of Darshan N. The rejection reinforces the legal principle that in cases of serious, organized crimes with potential life sentences, the paramount consideration remains the proper administration of justice, investigation integrity, and the safety of the victims and witnesses.