The LXVIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge in Bengaluru has rejected a regular bail petition filed by Tejas M, an alleged habitual offender accused of a violent robbery in the Rajagopalanagar police limits. The court ruled that the petitioner’s extensive criminal background and the heinous nature of the charges made him unfit for release, despite his claims of being a student with a promising future.
The order, delivered by Sri Sabappa on June 28, 2022, emphasizes that the safety of the public and the integrity of the judicial process outweigh the personal liberties of an individual with a proven propensity for committing serious economic and violent offenses.
Details of the Pulsar Bike Robbery Case
The case against Tejas M (Accused Number 2) stems from an incident on November 26, 2021. According to the prosecution, the complainant, Akash Hejra, was on his way to dispose of office garbage using a Bajaj Pulsar motorcycle. He was accompanied by an office boy, Ujwal Bagdhi.
Approximately 200 meters from his office, the two victims were intercepted by two unknown individuals on a two-wheeler. The pillion rider allegedly brandished a knife and used derogatory language to intimidate the victims. After assaulting the complainant near his left eye, the attackers forcibly took the keys to the Pulsar bike and fled the scene.
The Rajagopalanagar Police initially registered a First Information Report (FIR) against unknown persons under Section 392 (Punishment for robbery) and Section 397 (Robbery, or dacoity, with attempt to cause death or grievous hurt) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Following a detailed investigation, the police identified Tejas M as one of the perpetrators and filed a charge sheet on March 4, 2022.
Defense Claims: “Falsely Implicated Student”
The petitioner, represented by Sri S.J. Kumar, argued that he was entirely innocent of the charges. The defense contended that Tejas M was not named in the original complaint and was only identified months later. A significant portion of the defense argument centered on the petitioner’s status as a student at Shridevi Polytechnic in Tumkur, asserting that a denial of bail would jeopardize his academic career and future.
The defense further argued that since the investigation was complete and the charge sheet had already been filed, there was no need for continued custodial detention. They claimed the petitioner was unaware of the complaint until his arrest on June 11, 2022, and was ready to abide by any conditions the court might impose.
Prosecution Reveals “Rowdy Sheeter” Status
The Public Prosecutor strongly opposed the bail plea, presenting a starkly different profile of the petitioner. The prosecution revealed that Tejas M is a recorded “rowdy sheeter” at the Yelahanka police station. Far from being a first-time offender or a victim of circumstance, the state provided evidence of a massive criminal record spanning multiple jurisdictions.
The prosecution noted that Tejas M is currently involved in at least six other criminal cases across various stations, including:
- Yelahanka Police Station
- Sarjapura Police Station
- Gowribidanoor Police Station
- Doddaballapura Police Station
- Dibburahalli Police Station
The charges against him in these jurisdictions include offenses punishable under Section 392 (Robbery), Section 395 (Punishment for dacoity), Section 397 (Robbery with attempt to cause death), Section 399 (Making preparation to commit dacoity), and Section 402 (Assembling for purpose of committing dacoity) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
Court Findings: Public Safety and Habitual Offending
In his evaluation, Judge Sabappa found the prosecution’s arguments regarding the petitioner’s antecedents to be conclusive. The court observed that the petitioner is a “habitual offender” who is not a law-abiding citizen. The judge noted that the offenses under Section 392 and Section 397 are heinous and carry a potential imprisonment of up to 10 years.
The court ruled that the mere filing of a charge sheet does not entitle a habitual offender to bail. The judge expressed a strong concern that if Tejas M were released, there was a high probability of him committing similar offenses, thereby endangering society at large. Furthermore, the court noted that the petitioner is required for interrogation in other pending cases.
“The alleged offense committed by the accused/petitioner is a heinous offense,” the judge noted in the final order. “The petitioner is not having any suitable reason to enlarge him on bail… there is every chance of absconding and committing similar offenses.”
Final Order
The court rejected the bail petition filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Tejas M will remain in judicial custody as the trial for the robbery case proceeds in C.C.No.7981/2022. The ruling serves as a firm reminder of the judiciary’s strict stance on habitual offenders involved in violent crimes.