Anticipatory Bail Granted: Court Cites Lack of Custodial Interrogation Need for Accused in Channammanakere Achu Kattu Police Case
BENGALURU: The XLV Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City (CCH-46), granted anticipatory bail to four petitioners, including Arun Kumar Mahesh Dharma, who were facing serious charges including house-trespass, assault, and outraging the modesty of a woman. The order, issued on September 4, 2023, by Sri. Manjunatha, allowed the petition filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) despite objections from the prosecution.
The petitioners—Arun Kumar Mahesh Dharma (29), Savithramma (56), K.S. Keerthana (21), and Chandra @ Ramachandra (52)—had sought protection against arrest in Crime No. 229/2023 registered by the Channammanakere Achu Kattu Police Station. The case was filed based on a complaint lodged by Kum. R. Kavya, aged 28.
Details of the Offenses Alleged
The complaint outlines a disturbing incident that occurred on August 3, 2023. According to the complainant, the accused persons allegedly committed house trespass into her residence at around 8:00 p.m. and subjected the occupants to assault and wrongful confinement. The complaint further alleges that when the victims locked themselves inside, the accused attempted to break the door.
In a particularly bizarre and offensive act, the complaint states that at 5:00 p.m. on the same day, the accused placed the head of a cock, eggs, and other articles in front of the door. The primary accused, Arun Kumar Mahesh Dharma (Petitioner No. 1), who was allegedly under the influence of alcohol and accompanied by friends, is accused of physically assaulting the complainant by holding her hair and dragging her. He also allegedly used filthy language, threatened her life, and committed acts that outraged her modesty.
The petitioners were booked for offenses punishable under sections 448 (house trespass), 323 (voluntarily causing hurt), 354 (assault or criminal force to woman with intent to outrage her modesty), 355 (assault or criminal force with intent to dishonor person), 504 (intentional insult), and 506 (criminal intimidation), all read with Section 149 (unlawful assembly) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
Prosecution’s Stance and Court’s Rationale
The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail plea vehemently, arguing that the investigation was in progress and that granting bail at this juncture would result in the destruction of evidence, tampering of prosecution witnesses, and hampering of the ongoing investigation. The prosecution sought the rejection of the bail petition to ensure the accused cooperate with the inquiry.
The Court acknowledged the gravity of the allegations, noting that a prima facie case exists against the petitioners for the offenses registered. However, the Court highlighted that none of the alleged offenses are punishable with death or imprisonment for life. Specifically, the Court observed that while Section 354 of the IPC is a non-bailable offense, it is exclusively triable by a Magistrate.
In applying the principle that granting bail is a discretionary power to be exercised based on the facts of each case, the Judge weighed the need for custodial interrogation against the fundamental right to liberty. The Court’s order emphasized a key finding:
“It is pertinent to note that the interrogation of the accused/petitioners is not at all required for the alleged offences as shown in the FIR. By considering all the above facts and arguments canvased by prosecution it is found that if stringent conditions are imposed on the appearance of the petitioners/accused persons before the I.O.,/Court the purpose of prosecution objection that petitioners/accused would not appear for enquiry before I.O., and trial before Court would be met with.”
The Court reasoned that since the petitioners are permanent residents of the addresses provided (Hassan and Tumkuru districts), a fact undisputed by the prosecution, their presence can be easily secured, eliminating the risk of absconding. The Court concluded that no purpose would be served by allowing the police to apprehend the petitioners for interrogation, especially when they expressed readiness to face trial and abide by court conditions.
Conditions for Anticipatory Bail
Finding sufficient grounds for granting the relief, the Court answered Point No. 1 in the Affirmative and allowed the petition, imposing a detailed set of stringent conditions to safeguard the integrity of the investigation and trial process.
The four petitioners were ordered to be released on bail upon executing a personal bond for ₹1,00,000/- each with one surety for a like sum to the satisfaction of the concerned Investigating Officer (I.O.) or Magistrate, in the event of their arrest.
Crucial conditions imposed include:
- Surrender Deadline: The petitioners must surrender before the concerned Police within 30 days from the date of the order.
- Cooperation and Attendance: They must make themselves available for interrogation by the I.O. as and when required until the final report is filed. Additionally, they are required to mark their attendance once a month, specifically on the first Sunday of every month between 10:00 a.m. and 2:00 p.m. before the I.O.
- Non-Tampering: They are explicitly restrained from making any inducement, threat, or promise to witnesses, tampering with prosecution evidence, intimidating the complainant, or committing similar offenses during the pendency of the case.
The Court also included a mandatory clause stating that the bail would stand automatically canceled in the event of violation of any of the imposed conditions. This measure ensures that the petitioners remain accountable throughout the legal proceedings.