BENGALURU, MAY 3, 2024 – The LXI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, has granted regular bail to two young men, Deekshith Gowda (Accused No. 1) and Prashanth (Accused No. 3), who were arrested on charges of assembling and preparing to commit dacoity. The court, presided over by Sri. Sirajuddeen A., allowed the bail petition filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C., concluding that continued judicial custody was unwarranted since all incriminating materials had already been recovered.

The petitioners were booked in Crime No. 89/2024 by the Kumarswamy 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). Both accused are aged 19 and were currently in judicial custody at the time of the order.

Details of the Prosecution’s Case

The case of the prosecution, as detailed in the court records, is that on March 25, 2024, at approximately 8:45 p.m., the complainant, P.S.I. Sarthik S.L. of Kumarswamy Layout Police Station, received credible information. The tip-off indicated that five to six persons had unlawfully assembled with deadly weapons at Muniyappa Compound, Pipe Line Road, Illiyaz Nagar, Bengaluru, intending to commit dacoity on passersby.

The complainant, along with panchas (witnesses) and staff, rushed to the spot, surrounded the area, and successfully apprehended Accused Nos. 1, 2, and 3 (including the present petitioners, Deekshith Gowda and Prashanth). Accused No. 4, Vinay Kumar @ Wini, and Accused No. 5, Manka @ Chinnarasu, managed to escape, reportedly discarding a knife and a club as they fled.

Upon searching the arrested individuals, the police allegedly recovered a knife, an iron rod, and a wooden wicket. A panchanama was conducted between 10:00 p.m. and 11:00 p.m., during which the deadly weapons were seized and sealed. Subsequently, the arrested accused and the seized articles were brought to the police station, and the case was registered.

Arguments for Release

The petitioners, through their counsel Sri. C. Srinivasa, argued they were innocent and falsely implicated in the case. They asserted that they had not committed any offense and that the entire material on record failed to establish a prima facie case against them.

Key arguments for bail included:

1. Falsity of Allegations: The petitioners contended that the alleged spot of the crime is located in a busy area, making the story of “unlawful assembling with deadly weapons and attempting to loot the public” unbelievable.
2. No Overt Act: The defense argued there was no specific overt act attributed to the petitioners that would suggest they were reasonably guilty of the alleged offenses.
3. No Exclusively Severe Punishment: The alleged offenses under Sections 399 and 402 of the IPC, while non-bailable, are not punishable exclusively with death or imprisonment for life.
4. Deep Roots in Society: The petitioners claimed to be permanent residents of Bengaluru with deep roots in society, eliminating the risk of absconding.
5. Willingness to Cooperate: They expressed readiness to abide by any conditions imposed by the court and furnish surety.

Prosecution’s Opposition

The Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application, submitting the Investigating Officer’s report and arguing that the materials placed on record were sufficient to establish the involvement of the accused. The prosecution insisted that the investigation was incomplete and that the accused were habitual offenders. Granting bail, they feared, would lead to the petitioners absconding, threatening, and tampering with prosecution witnesses, thereby hindering the trial.

Court’s Justification for Bail

In its analysis, the LXI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge carefully considered the legal implications of the continued detention. The court acknowledged the offenses are non-bailable but reiterated that they do not attract the highest penalties.

The most decisive factor in the court’s decision was the completion of the evidence recovery. The order noted, “All the incriminating materials are recovered from the possession of the accused under the cover of panchanama. So, in my opinion the presence of accused is no more required for the purpose of investigation, since nothing is to be recovered from the possession of the accused.”

Furthermore, the court took note that the respondent police had themselves submitted in the remand application that the petitioners were no longer required for custodial interrogation.

Emphasizing the principle of “presumed to be innocent till their guilt is proved,” the Judge stated that detaining the petitioners in judicial custody would be akin to imposing a “pre-trial punishment,” which is not fair in law. The court concluded that the truth or falsity of the complaint averments is a matter for the full-fledged trial. Given the petitioners’ undertaking to abide by conditions, the court found it just and proper to grant bail, safeguarding the prosecution’s interest by imposing stringent conditions.

Strict Conditions for Release

The court allowed the bail petition and ordered the release of Deekshith Gowda and Prashanth upon executing a personal bond for Rs. 1,00,000/- each (One Lakh Rupees) with one solvent surety for the like sum.

The release is subject to the following stringent conditions:

1. Mandatory Monthly Attendance: The petitioners shall mark their attendance before the Station House Officer (SHO) of the respondent Police Station once a month on every 2nd Saturday between 10:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m., till the filing of the final report or for a period of six months, whichever is earlier.
2. No Tampering/Threat: The petitioners shall not hold any threat to the complainant and shall not tamper with any of the prosecution witnesses directly or indirectly.
3. Address Proof: The petitioners shall furnish their residential address proof and that of their sureties.
4. Cooperation: The petitioners shall cooperate with the Investigating Officer as and when called for the purpose of investigation.
5. Court Appearances: The petitioners shall appear before the concerned court regularly on all the dates of hearing without fail till the disposal of the case.

The court explicitly warned that failure to obey any of the stated conditions would automatically result in the cancellation of the bail order.