BENGALURU, SEPTEMBER 12, 2023 – In a notable ruling, the LXIX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, granted regular bail to Chikkanna @ Chikka, the primary accused in a case involving the preparation to commit dacoity. The court’s decision, delivered by Judge Sri. Balagopalakrishna, emphasized the legal principle that “bail is a rule and jail is an exception,” and acknowledged that the investigation was substantially complete, negating the need for continued judicial custody.

Chikkanna @ Chikka (Accused No. 1) was arrested and charged along with others in Crime No. 146/2023 of the Mahalakshmi Layout Police Station for offenses punishable under Sections 399 (Making preparation to commit dacoity) and 402 (Assembling for purpose of committing dacoity) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

The Allegations and Arrest

According to the First Information Report (FIR), the incident took place on June 25, 2023, around 8:20 p.m. A Police Sub-Inspector (PSI) and his staff, while on patrolling duty, received a credible tip-off. They proceeded to the area near Kirloskar Foundry in Mahalakshmipuram where they allegedly found Chikkanna and the co-accused assembled, holding deadly weapons, and making preparations to commit dacoity on the public. The police staff apprehended the accused at the spot and seized the weapons after conducting a mahazar (spot inspection and seizure). Chikkanna has been in judicial custody since his arrest on June 26, 2023.

Arguments for and Against Bail

The petitioner, represented by Advocate Smt. Yashodha D.N., argued that Chikkanna was innocent and falsely implicated, asserting that he hails from a respectable family, has no bad antecedents, and is a permanent resident of Laggere, Bengaluru. The defense assured the court that the petitioner was ready to abide by any conditions imposed and would furnish surety.

The learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the bail plea, contending that the offenses were grave and committed against society. The prosecution labeled the petitioner as a “habitual offender” involved in many other cases of similar nature, arguing that his release would lead to him committing similar crimes, absconding, tampering with evidence, and threatening prosecution witnesses.

Court’s Rationale for Granting Bail

Judge Balagopalakrishna meticulously examined the facts and the legal principles governing bail applications.

1. Nature of Offence and Trial Stage: The court noted that the offenses alleged under Sections 399 and 402 of the IPC are not punishable with death or imprisonment for life. The ultimate determination of whether the accused were making preparations for dacoity or were armed with deadly weapons is a matter for a full-fledged trial, not the bail stage.

2. Completion of Investigation: A crucial factor in the court’s decision was the status of the investigation. The Investigating Officer’s report confirmed that the mahazar had already been conducted, the weapons and articles were seized, and the same was intimated to the court. The report explicitly stated that “presence of the present petitioner is not required for further investigation of the case.” The court concluded that substantially, the investigation was complete, making continued custodial interrogation unnecessary.

3. Legal Maxim of Bail: The Judge invoked the well-established legal principle laid down by the Supreme Court in State of Rajasthan vs. Balchand @ Baliay (AIR 1977 SCC 2447): “bail is a rule and jail is an exception.” This principle, the court reasoned, is meant to protect the fundamental right to life and liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

4. Habitual Offender Argument: Addressing the prosecution’s serious assertion that Chikkanna is a “habitual offender,” the court pointed out that the prosecution failed to mention the specific crime numbers in the report. Crucially, the Judge held that “Unless the petitioner is convicted in any other case the court cannot come to conclusion that he is a habitual offender. Only on the ground of pendency of some cases against the petitioner bail cannot be rejected.”

5. Change in Circumstances: The court also mentioned that an earlier bail application for the petitioner had been rejected on the grounds that his presence was required to trace other accused. However, this stage had now passed, demonstrating a change in circumstances favorable to the petitioner.

The court determined that the prosecution’s apprehension regarding abscondence or tampering with evidence could be effectively countered by imposing strict bail conditions. Finding no exceptional circumstances to justify continued detention, the court answered the point of reference in the affirmative.

Stringent Conditions for Release

The court allowed the petition and ordered Chikkanna @ Chikka to be enlarged on bail upon furnishing a personal bond for Rs. 1,00,000/- (One Lakh Rupees) with one like sum surety to the satisfaction of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (CMM), subject to the following stringent conditions:

1. Mandatory Weekly Attendance: The petitioner must appear before the Investigating Officer once a week, specifically every Sunday between 9:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m., until the conclusion of the investigation and shall cooperate with the I.O.
2. Court Appearance: The petitioner shall appear before the court regularly on all dates of hearing without fail.
3. No Tampering/Threat: The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat, or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case, so as to deceive or hamper with the witnesses.
4. No Similar Offences: The petitioner shall not commit offenses of a similar nature or any other offenses in the future.
5. Address Proof: The petitioner shall furnish his correct address proof before the trial court.
6. Travel Restriction: The petitioner shall not leave India without the previous sanction of the court.

The court explicitly warned that the violation of any of these conditions would result in the automatic cancellation of the bail granted.