The LVI Additional City Civil and Sessions Court in Bengaluru has granted anticipatory bail to 20-year-old Praveen Kumar, also known as Appu, in connection with a robbery case dating back to March 2020. The court, presided over by Judge Sri T. Govindaiah, observed that since the investigation is complete and a charge sheet has already been filed, custodial interrogation of the petitioner is no longer necessary.

The petitioner, a resident of Samadhana Nagar in North Bengaluru, sought protection from arrest in Crime No. 144/2020 (later registered as C.C. No. 15523/2022) of the Sampigehalli Police Station. The case involves serious charges under Sections 392 (Robbery) and 397 (Robbery or dacoity, with attempt to cause death or grievous hurt) read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

Details of the 2020 Knife-Point Robbery

The prosecution’s case is based on an incident that occurred on March 12, 2020, between 4:10 a.m. and 4:15 a.m. According to the complaint, two individuals arrived on a Honda Activa scooter that had no number plate. The incident took place near the Nagavara service road bus stand.

It is alleged that the accused approached the complainant and threatened him at knife-point. During the confrontation, the assailants forcibly took two silver rings, a smartwatch, and a purse from the victim before fleeing the scene. While the First Information Report (FIR) originally mentioned “unknown persons,” subsequent investigations led the police to link Praveen Kumar to the crime.

Arguments for Bail: Absence of Name in Initial FIR

The counsel representing Praveen Kumar argued that the petitioner’s name did not appear in the initial complaint or the FIR filed in 2020. The defense contended that the only material linking the petitioner to the robbery was the voluntary statement of Accused No. 1, which they claimed was insufficient evidence to prove his presence at the crime scene.

The defense further emphasized that Praveen Kumar is a law-abiding citizen and a permanent resident of Bengaluru. A significant point raised was that Accused No. 1 had already been granted bail by the same court. The counsel argued that since the police had already filed the charge sheet, the petitioner’s liberty should be protected, as he is ready to face trial and abide by all court-imposed conditions.

Prosecution Cites Risk of Witness Tampering

The Public Prosecutor strongly opposed the bail petition, asserting that there is prima facie evidence of the petitioner’s involvement in a heinous crime involving weapons. The prosecution argued that if granted bail, Praveen Kumar might use his freedom to threaten witnesses, destroy evidence, or abscond to evade justice. They also expressed concern that the petitioner might engage in similar criminal activities if not kept under surveillance.

The Court’s Findings and Reasoning

In its ruling, Judge T. Govindaiah noted that the allegations of the accused threatening the victim with a knife and stealing personal belongings are matters that must be established through a full-fledged trial with authenticated testimony.

The court took into account the fact that the investigation by the Sampigehalli Police is concluded and the charge sheet has been submitted to the VII ACMM Court in Bengaluru. The court found merit in the argument that custodial interrogation was no longer required to move the case forward. “Considering the nature and gravity of the offence, the petitioner is entitled for bail. The apprehension of the prosecution could be dealt with by imposing some conditions,” the order stated.

Strict Conditions for Anticipatory Bail

The court allowed the petition under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.), directing that Praveen Kumar be released in the event of his arrest, subject to the following conditions:

1. Financial Bond: The petitioner must execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs. 1,00,000 with two sureties for the like sum to the satisfaction of the arresting officer or the court.
2. Witness Protection: He is strictly prohibited from tampering with or influencing the prosecution witnesses in any manner.
3. Investigative Cooperation: He must appear before the Investigating Officer as and when called for further inquiries.
4. Trial Attendance: The petitioner must appear before the trial court on all scheduled dates of hearing without fail.
5. Good Conduct: He shall not indulge in committing any further criminal offences while out on bail.

With the granting of this order, the case now moves toward the trial phase where the evidence presented in the charge sheet will be scrutinized by the VII ACMM Court. Failure to comply with any of the conditions mentioned above could lead to the immediate cancellation of his bail.