The LII Additional City Civil and Sessions Court in Bengaluru has dismissed an anticipatory bail petition filed by a 22-year-old man, Gowtham G, in connection with an assault case registered at the Begur Police Station. The court, presided over by Judge Sri B.G. Pramoda, ruled that the petition for anticipatory bail was not maintainable under the law because the offenses alleged against the petitioner are fundamentally bailable in nature.
Background of the Case
The legal proceedings originated from an incident that led to the registration of Crime Number 326/2022 at the Begur Police Station. The First Information Report (FIR) was filed based on a complaint lodged by an individual named Sanjay S. The allegations involved offenses punishable under Sections 323, 324, and 325, read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). These sections pertain to voluntarily causing hurt, voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means, and voluntarily causing grievous hurt, respectively.
The petitioner, Gowtham G, a resident of Sneha Nilaya in Vishwapriya Layout, Begur, approached the court seeking protection from arrest under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.). Represented by his advocate, Sri Mukund S.N., the petitioner contended that he was innocent of the charges and had been falsely implicated in the crime. He expressed a deep-seated apprehension that the police were making “hectic efforts” to arrest him, which prompted the filing of the anticipatory bail application.
Arguments Presented by the Petitioner
During the hearing, the counsel for Gowtham G argued that the petitioner is a law-abiding citizen with no prior criminal record. It was submitted that as a permanent resident of Bengaluru, there was no risk of him fleeing from justice. The petitioner’s legal team emphasized his willingness to cooperate with the investigation and his readiness to abide by any conditions imposed by the court, including providing necessary sureties. The primary thrust of their argument was the protection of the petitioner’s liberty against what they termed as an unfounded threat of arrest.
Opposition by the Prosecution
The Public Prosecutor representing the State of Karnataka filed a strong objection to the bail plea. The prosecution argued that the offenses alleged were grave and directed against the peace of society. However, the prosecution also raised a technical legal point that eventually became the cornerstone of the court’s decision: the offenses listed in the FIR are bailable under the Indian Penal Code.
The State further pointed out that Gowtham G’s name did not appear in the original complaint filed by Sanjay S, nor was it mentioned in the FIR. Since the petitioner was not a named accused in the primary documents and the offenses themselves allowed for bail as a matter of right at the police station or before a magistrate, the prosecution argued that there was no “reasonable apprehension” of arrest for a non-bailable offense, which is a prerequisite for invoking Section 438 of the Cr.P.C.
The Court’s Observations and Ruling
After hearing both sides and perusing the certified copies of the complaint, FIR, and the order sheet of the lower court, Judge B.G. Pramoda analyzed the legal standing of the petition. The court noted that the FIR had been registered against one Yasin and others, and significantly, the petitioner’s name was absent from these documents.
The court highlighted a critical aspect of criminal procedure: Anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. is specifically designed for individuals who fear arrest in relation to the commission of non-bailable offenses. In the case of Gowtham G, the court found that Sections 323, 324, and 325 of the IPC are bailable.
The judge observed that other accused persons in the same case (Accused No. 2 and 3) had already been enlarged on bail by the learned Magistrate under Section 437 of the Cr.P.C. The court reasoned that since the offenses are bailable, the police do not have the authority to detain the person if they are willing to provide bail.
In the final order, the court stated that if the respondent police were to eventually include Gowtham G as an accused and issue a notice, the petitioner would have the right to seek regular bail from the police station itself or from the Magistrate’s court as a matter of right by furnishing a surety.
Conclusion of the Proceedings
The court concluded that the petitioner failed to make out sufficient grounds for the grant of anticipatory bail. By answering Point Number 1 in the negative, the LII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge dismissed the petition (Crl.Misc.No.599/2023). This ruling reinforces the legal principle that the extraordinary remedy of anticipatory bail is reserved for non-bailable circumstances where the liberty of an individual is at risk of being curtailed without the immediate option of bail.
The dismissal means that Gowtham G must follow the standard legal procedure for bailable offenses should the investigation require his presence or should he be formally added to the chargesheet. The case remains pending on the file of the 41st ACMM, Bangalore.