The LXV Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City (CCH-66), on January 25, 2023, granted regular bail to the petitioner, Dunger Singh (Accused No. 1), in connection with a case of robbery registered by the City Market Police Station. The petitioner, represented by counsel Sri. GM., filed the petition under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C., seeking release in Crime No. 7/2023 for the offence punishable under Section 392 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

The court, presided over by Shri. Hemanth Kumar C.R., allowed the bail application after noting that the police had not sought custodial interrogation of the accused since his arrest, a factor that significantly undermined the prosecution’s opposition to the bail plea.

The Allegation: Robbery in Chickpet

The incident leading to the arrest of the petitioner occurred on January 11, 2023. The complainant, who runs a shop called Shubham Traders at Chickpet, lodged a complaint at 11:10 PM that night.

According to the complaint, at approximately 10:30 PM, after closing his business for the day, the complainant was walking with his business earnings behind Srinath Lodge on Laxman Rao Road. At this location, some unknown persons allegedly accosted him, grabbed him, and snatched Rs. 5,000/- in cash before attempting to flee. The complainant’s loud shouting caused one person standing nearby to alert others. Consequently, members of the public successfully apprehended the accused persons, who were then taken to the police station by the police personnel who happened to be present at the scene.

On the basis of this complaint, the City Market police registered the case against the unknown persons for the offence of robbery (Section 392 IPC) committed with a common intention (Section 34 IPC). The petitioner, Dunger Singh, S/o S. Murthy, a 20-year-old resident of Nandini Layout, Bengaluru, was subsequently identified and arrayed as Accused No. 1.

Petitioner’s Defense and Grounds for Bail

The petitioner’s counsel argued that Dunger Singh was innocent and had been falsely implicated in the case. Key points raised included:

• No Specific Accusation: The petitioner claimed there was “no specific over act attributed against the petitioner,” and his name was not mentioned in either the First Information Report (FIR) or the original complaint, which referred only to “unknown persons.”
• Mistaken Identity/Language Barrier: The counsel contended that the petitioner, who was returning home from work, was picked up by the police from his home. He further suggested that the petitioner, being unfamiliar with the local Kannada language, may have been falsely implicated.
• Lack of Criminal History: The petitioner was cited as having no bad antecedents and possessing deep roots in society as a permanent resident of the address listed in the cause title.
• Young Age and Family Responsibility: Being only 20 years old and the sole earning member supporting aged parents, the petitioner argued that his continued detention would unnecessarily spoil his future.
• Co-operation: The petitioner affirmed his willingness to abide by any court conditions and co-operate fully with the ongoing investigation.

Prosecution’s Opposition and the Court’s Finding

The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail petition vehemently, maintaining that the offence alleged was “grievous in nature” and that the complaint averments established a prima facie case. The prosecution stressed that the investigation was still in progress, requiring the police to collect evidence, record witness statements, and feared that granting bail could lead to the petitioner threatening witnesses, destroying evidence, or absconding, thereby hampering the trial. Furthermore, the prosecution expressed apprehension that since the petitioner was noted to belong to Rajasthan State, he might flee the jurisdiction.

Upon reviewing the case records, the court noted a critical failure on the part of the investigating agency. The court observed that from the date of arrest (January 12, 2023) up to the date of the bail order (January 25, 2023), the police had repeatedly sought and obtained extensions of judicial custody for the accused. Crucially, however, “The police have not taken the said accused persons to police custody for investigation as such it shows that the accused persons are not required for investigation.”

This finding significantly neutralized the prosecution’s argument that the petitioner’s release would impede the collection of evidence or statement recording.

The court further noted that the offence under Section 392 IPC is not punishable with imprisonment for life or death. Acknowledging the petitioner’s submission that he is a permanent resident of the stated address, the judge concluded that the apprehension of the prosecution regarding absconding could be satisfied by imposing stringent conditions. The court determined that the petitioner could be enlarged on bail, as his guilt remains a matter to be proven during the trial.

Conditions for Release

In allowing the petition, the court ordered the release of Dunger Singh on bail in Crime No. 7/2023. The petitioner was directed to execute a personal bond for Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh) with one surety for the like sum, subject to seven strict conditions designed to meet the prosecution’s concerns:

1. The petitioner shall appear before the court on all the dates of hearing.
2. The petitioner shall appear before the I.O whenever he is called upon for the purpose of further investigation.
3. The petitioner shall not involve in any criminal activities.
4. The petitioner shall not tamper with the evidence and shall not threaten, induce, or allure the prosecution witnesses in whatsoever manner.
5. The petitioner shall appear before the I.O twice in a month between 9:00 AM and 9:00 PM till the filing of the charge sheet.
6. The petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the court without prior permission of the court.
7. The petitioner must produce a permanent address proof document.

The court’s decision provides conditional liberty to the petitioner, balancing the individual’s right to freedom with the necessity of a smooth and unhindered legal process.