Bengaluru, Karnataka: The LXVI Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge (CCH-67), Bengaluru City, granted regular bail to Anaab @ Gulfam (Accused No. 2) in connection with a case of armed robbery, just nine days after the bail application was presented. The court allowed the petition filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) on September 7, 2023, for offences registered under Section 397 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) (Robbery with attempt to cause death or grievous hurt) and Section 25(1B)(b) of the Arms Act.

The petitioner, a 23-year-old resident of Gangondanahalli, Bengaluru, was accused in Cr. No. 157/2023, registered by the Chamarajapet Police Station.

Case Details and Allegations

The case originates from a complaint filed by one Herbaz Khan. The complainant alleged that on August 20, 2023, around 3:00 p.m. at Valmiki Nagara 1st Main, he and his friend Fiaz were accosted by Accused No. 1 and Accused No. 2 (Anaab @ Gulfam). The accused allegedly took them inside a Government School premises.

The key allegations against the two accused were distinct:

• Accused No. 1, using a dagger, allegedly threatened the complainant and robbed Rs. 2,800/-.
• Accused No. 2 (Anaab @ Gulfam) allegedly threatened the complainant not to inform anybody about the incident.

The police investigation report, filed along with the objection by the Public Prosecutor, confirmed that a dagger (subjected to PF. 73/2023) was seized from the possession of Accused No. 1 following his voluntary statement.

The petitioner was arrested on August 23, 2023, and was subsequently remanded to judicial custody.

Prosecution’s Objection to Bail

The learned Public Prosecutor strongly opposed the bail petition, arguing that the petition was not maintainable. The prosecution contended that the petitioner, along with the other accused, committed the robbery by brandishing a knife. They argued that if the petitioner were granted bail, there was a risk he might continue to commit similar offences and that the investigation was still pending.

Court’s Reasoning for Granting Bail

The LXVI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Sri. S. Nataraj, meticulously examined the facts and the petitioner’s specific role in the alleged crime.

1. Distinction in Accusations and Material Seizure

The court highlighted the differential nature of the accusation leveled against the petitioner compared to Accused No. 1. The court noted: “The amount was robbed by using dagger by accused No. 1. the report does not disclose any criminal background of petitioner.”

The role ascribed to the petitioner was that of accompanying Accused No. 1 and subsequently threatening the complainant, while the actual act of robbery using the weapon (the dagger) was committed by Accused No. 1. This observation suggests that the court considered Anaab’s role to be secondary to the primary act of armed robbery.

2. Period of Custody and Judicial Precedent

The court acknowledged that the petitioner was in custody since August 23, 2023, and stated that the alleged offence, while triable by a Sessions Court, was not punishable with imprisonment for life or death. This is a significant factor in bail jurisprudence, especially when the investigation period has been brief.

Crucially, the court relied on the landmark judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Satender Kumar Antil Vs CBI (2022 SCC OnLine SC 825). This judgment provides comprehensive guidelines for granting bail, especially in cases where the accused is categorized under the court’s established parameters for non-serious economic or non-heinous offenses. The court found that, considering the guidelines, the facts, the nature and gravity of the offence, and the specific accusation against the petitioner, the continued custody of the petitioner may not be required.

Strict Conditions Imposed

Answering Point No. 1 in the affirmative, the court allowed the bail petition. The petitioner, Anaab @ Gulfam, was ordered to be released on bail upon executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs. 50,000/- with one surety for the like sum to the satisfaction of the Learned Magistrate.

To mitigate the risks cited by the prosecution, the court imposed several stringent conditions:

• The petitioner shall not threaten or tamper with prosecution witnesses in any manner.
• The petitioner shall regularly appear before the concerned court without absconding.
• The petitioner shall mark his attendance before the Station House Officer (SHO) of the Respondent police between 10 a.m. to 5 p.m., preferably on Sundays once in 15 days, till the filing of the charge sheet.
• The petitioner shall cooperate with the investigating agency in the proper investigation of the case.
• The petitioner shall not commit similar offences.

The court further warned that any violation of these conditions would entitle the prosecution to move for the cancellation of bail. The order, signed by S. Nataraj, LXVI Addl. CC & SJ, was pronounced in the open court on September 7, 2023.