BENGALURU, INDIA — The LX Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, has rejected the regular bail application of Ashuthosh Kumar Singh (A-1), one of the accused in a murder case registered under Kodigehalli Police Station Crime No. 220/2023. The order, delivered by Sri Narashimsa M.V. on September 12, 2023, emphasizes the gravity of the offence, the potential for the accused to flee justice, and the risk of witness tampering.

The petition, filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.), sought the release of the 19-year-old petitioner, Ashuthosh Kumar Singh, who is currently in judicial custody.

Escalation of Charges

The case originated from an incident on August 12, 2023, around 5:00 p.m., near the Ambedkar Bhavan, Canara Bank Layout Government Hospital. According to the initial complaint filed by one Kemparaju, the deceased, Chandrashekar, and his wife were allegedly assaulted by four to five unknown persons without provocation. Chandrashekar sustained severe injuries to his head and face from a “deadly weapon.” He was first shifted to Medstar Hospital and subsequently to NIMHANS, where he succumbed to his injuries due to treatment failure.

Initially, the Kodigehalli Police registered the case for minor offences under Section 323 (voluntarily causing hurt), 324 (voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means) read with Section 34 (common intention) of the IPC.

However, during the course of the investigation, the charges were continuously escalated:

1. The police first included Section 307 (Attempt to murder), 323, 324, 504 (Intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace) read with Section 34 of the IPC.
2. Following the death of the injured, the charges were further enhanced to include the serious offence of murder, resulting in the final addition of Section 143 (Unlawful assembly), 302 (Murder), 307, 323, 504 read with Section 149 (Every member of unlawful assembly guilty of offence committed in prosecution of common object) of the IPC.

The court’s order sheet confirmed that the police sought and obtained permission from the Magistrate to conduct the investigation under the heinous charge of Section 302 of the IPC.

Petitioner’s Defence Arguments

Counsel for the petitioner argued several points to seek bail:

• Innocence and False Implication: The petitioner claimed to be innocent and falsely implicated, asserting that the FIR was registered on “false and bogus facts.”
• Specific Role of Co-Accused: The defence contended that the statement of the deceased revealed that it was only Shiva (A-2) who hit the deceased with the intention of killing, and not the petitioner (A-1).
• Cause of Death: It was argued that the death resulted from an injury sustained by falling on the road and not directly due to the scuffle with the accused.
• Lack of Motive: The petitioner claimed to be a total stranger to the deceased, thus lacking the ingredients of intention, motive, or preparation required for the offence of murder.
• Provocation: The defence attempted to shift the blame, stating that the deceased and his companions provoked the accused based on a misconception that A-1 had kidnapped a child.
• Flight Risk Mitigation: The petitioner asserted he is a permanent resident of Bangalore and belongs to a respectable family, offering to furnish surety and abide by all court conditions. He also highlighted his status as a student, arguing that detention would jeopardize his career.

Court’s Reasons for Rejection

The learned Public Prosecutor filed objections, strongly opposing the bail application and asserting that the accused had committed a heinous offence. The court ultimately sided with the prosecution, answering the point of consideration in the Negative and providing detailed reasons for denying bail.

1. Contradictory Residency Claim (Flight Risk)

The court placed significant weight on the petitioner’s contradictory residence claims. While the bail application showed A-1 as a resident of Bangalore, the official remand application submitted by the police showed his address as Uttar Pradesh.

The Judge observed, “If A-1, is granted bail, he will flee away from jurisdiction and trial will not begin at all.” This finding established a clear flight risk, which is a primary ground for denying bail, especially in grave offences.

2. Gravity of Offence and Prima Facie Evidence

The court considered the gravity of the offence, noting that the assault was “said to have taken place on Chandrashekar, in a broad day light.” The fact that the initial injury escalated to murder (Section 302 IPC) underscores the severity of the act. The court noted the nature and gravity of the injury and the place and time the offence was committed as critical factors.

3. Risk of Witness Tampering (Threat to Life)

The court highlighted the presence of an eyewitness and a second victim, one Goutham, who was also present at the spot and sustained injuries.

The Judge specifically stated, “Goutham is an eyewitness, if A-1 is enlarged on bail, there is every possibility of life threat to Sri Goutham/ injured.” This concern about the safety of a crucial witness and the potential for tampering with evidence was a decisive factor in rejecting the plea.

4. Investigation Status

The petitioner’s claim that investigation was complete merely because the police custody period had ended was dismissed by the court, which stated, “mere completion of period of police custody does not mean that the investigation has been completed.”

Considering all these factors—the life-threatening nature of the injuries leading to death, the high risk of the petitioner absconding from jurisdiction due to his domicile outside the state, and the potential threat to the sole eyewitness—the LX Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge concluded that Ashuthosh Kumar Singh was not entitled to be enlarged on bail.

The bail application was therefore rejected, leaving the petitioner in judicial custody pending the conclusion of the investigation and trial proceedings.