The LXII Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City (CCH-63), on September 8, 2023, rejected the regular bail petition filed by Deepak Gowda @ Deepu @ Aghori (Accused No. 4) in a case involving charges of dacoity, kidnapping for ransom, and use of a deadly weapon. The petitioner sought relief under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. in Crl.Misc. No. 8031/2023, concerning offences registered under Sections 395 (Dacoity), 364A (Kidnapping for ransom), 397 (Robbery or dacoity, with attempt to cause death or grievous hurt), 326 (Voluntarily causing grievous hurt by dangerous weapons or means), and 506 (Criminal intimidation) of the Indian Penal Code, alongside Sections 25(1-B)(a) and 27 of the Arms Act.

The court, presided over by Sri. A. Earanna, denied the petition primarily by emphasizing the severity and nature of the offences, the existence of strong material evidence against the petitioner, and the petitioner’s history of having multiple prior bail applications, including one before the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka, rejected.

Details of the Heinous Offence

The facts of the case, as summarized by the prosecution, detail a violent and premeditated crime that took place on February 9, 2021. At approximately 3:30 AM, near the National Co-operative Bank on 23rd Cross, an individual, later identified as one of the assailants, stopped the complainant’s car under the guise of needing help, simulating a leg injury with a bandage.

When the complainant stopped his car to assist, three other individuals, including the petitioner (Accused No. 4), forced their way into the vehicle. They compelled the complainant to open his seat belt and then drove the car away at high speed. The assailants stopped the car on 9th Main Road, where one of the accused placed a gun on the complainant’s head, threatening him into silence.

During the prolonged drive, the victim was repeatedly assaulted with the handle of the gun and was forcibly driven to Malavalli. The core of the crime was extortion: the accused demanded money from the complainant. Since the complainant had no cash, the assailants forced him to call his wife, falsely informing her that he had been in an accident. They then threatened the wife, stating they would not release the complainant or the car unless money was paid. Under duress, the complainant’s wife transferred Rs. 15,000/- to his account. The accused then drove the car and stopped near Malavalli, where they withdrew the transferred amount from the complainant’s Karnataka Bank ATM at about 6:15 AM. Following the withdrawal, they abandoned the complainant in his car after snatching his phone. The victim then sought help from the Malavalli Town Police, and the case was subsequently transferred to the Banashankari Police Station, where the complaint was officially registered.

Arguments for and Against Bail

The petitioner, Deepak Gowda, argued that he was innocent and falsely implicated, asserting that the allegations were hearsay and required a full-fledged trial. His counsel contended that since the police had already completed the investigation and filed the charge sheet, his custodial presence was no longer required. He assured the court that he had a permanent residence and would not abscond, offering to abide by any conditions imposed.

The learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the application, submitting the Investigative Officer’s report and arguing that the petitioner’s release would pose a significant risk. The prosecutor highlighted the high probability of the petitioner committing similar offences, threatening prosecution witnesses, and absconding, given the gravity of the crime. The prosecutor also presented evidence of the petitioner’s poor judicial history, noting that multiple prior bail petitions (Crl. Petitions No. 2130/2021, 4343/2021, 4788/2021, 10713/2021, 9807/2021) were rejected by the trial court, and even the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka had rejected his Crl. Petition No. 5685/2021.

Court’s Ruling and Rationale

Justice A. Earanna, in his ruling, sided with the prosecution. The court explicitly stated that the petitioner had “not made out any new grounds” to warrant a different decision, especially given the history of repeated bail rejections at both the Sessions Court and the High Court level. The mere filing of a charge sheet was deemed insufficient grounds for granting bail in a case of this magnitude.

The court’s decision was anchored in the established legal principles of considering the gravity and nature of the offence. The ruling emphasized:

• Material and Incriminating Evidence: The court found that there was “material and incriminating evidence” available against the petitioner.
• Gravity of the Offence: The alleged offence involves violent acts, kidnapping, and the use of a deadly weapon, classifying it as a heinous crime.
• Risk to Justice: The court concluded that granting bail would lead to a high “chance of petitioner hampering further investigation and they causing threat to the prosecution witnesses and chance of their abscond and chance of he committing similar offences cannot be ruled out.”

In view of these factors, the court answered Point No. 1 in the negative, concluding that the gravity of the offences outweighed the personal liberty claimed by the petitioner. The bail petition filed by Deepak Gowda @ Deepu @ Aghori was consequently rejected.