In a significant legal development, the LXVIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Court in Bengaluru has granted regular bail to three young men accused of conspiring to commit dacoity near a college on Mylasandra Road. The order, delivered by Judge Sri Sabappa, emphasizes the judicial principle that “bail is the rule and jail is the exception,” particularly when the investigation has reached a stage where custodial interrogation is no longer deemed necessary.
The petitioners, identified as Manjunath P.K alias Banet (21), Shivaraju (23), and Prasad K alias Kari (19), had been in judicial custody since their arrest in June. The court’s decision to release them under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C comes as a relief to their families, as the defense successfully argued that the accused are the primary breadwinners for their respective households.
Details of the Alleged Conspiracy and Arrest
The case dates back to the early morning hours of June 15, 2022. According to the complaint filed by Sri Guruswamy Hiremath, a Police Sub-Inspector at the Begur Police Station, he received credible information while on patrolling duty about a group of individuals assembled unlawfully in a vacant space near GIBS College on Mylasandra Road.
The police alleged that the group, consisting of four to five persons, was equipped with deadly weapons and was planning to attack and loot commuters passing along the road. Acting on this intelligence, the PSI, along with his staff and independent witnesses (panchas), raided the spot. The police reported that after observing the activities and hearing the discussions of the suspects, they surrounded and apprehended five individuals, including the three petitioners. During the operation, several weapons were reportedly seized from the possession of the accused.
Grounds for Bail and Defense Arguments
Representing the petitioners, Advocate Sri K.V. Srinivas presented several grounds for the grant of bail. The defense categorically denied the allegations, asserting that the young men were innocent and had been falsely implicated in the crime. One of the central arguments was the implausibility of the police’s version of events. The defense argued that the alleged spot is a busy area, making the story of an unlawful assembly with deadly weapons in such a public space difficult to believe.
The advocate further contended that there was no material evidence to establish a concrete plan to attack the public and that the voluntary statements recorded by the police were coerced or fabricated to suit the prosecution’s case. It was also highlighted that there were no independent eyewitnesses to verify the presence of the accused at the spot with weapons.
Regarding the personal backgrounds of the petitioners, the defense noted that they hail from respectable families and have no prior criminal records. They argued that the offenses alleged under Sections 399 (preparation to commit dacoity) and 402 (assembling for purpose of committing dacoity) of the IPC, and Section 25 of the Arms Act, are not punishable by death or life imprisonment.
Prosecution’s Objection and the Court’s Ruling
The Public Prosecutor strongly opposed the bail petition, characterizing the alleged acts as a “heinous offence.” The state argued that the investigation was still in progress and that if released, the petitioners might abscond, commit similar crimes, or tamper with prosecution witnesses. The prosecution also alluded to the possibility of multiple cases against the petitioners.
However, the court noted that the prosecution failed to furnish any documentary evidence to support the claim that the petitioners had other criminal cases registered against them. Judge Sabappa observed that while the police had conducted a “part investigation,” the petitioners were no longer required for further interrogation.
In the final order, the court highlighted that the petitioners are permanent residents of Bengaluru, Hassan, and Kalaburagi districts, and that their families would face extreme hardship if they remained incarcerated. The judge reiterated that it is improper to curtail a person’s liberty when trial is required to ascertain the reality of the charges.
Conditions of Release
The court allowed the bail petition subject to the following stringent conditions to safeguard the interests of the prosecution:
- Each petitioner must execute a personal bond of Rs 1,00,000 with two sureties for the like sum.
- The petitioners shall not tamper with prosecution witnesses, either directly or indirectly.
- They are required to appear regularly before the trial court as and when directed.
- They must not abscond from their ordinary residence and must provide verified address proof to the police.
- The petitioners are prohibited from indulging in any other kind of offense while out on bail.
- They must not leave the jurisdiction of the court without prior permission.
- They are required to mark their attendance at the Begur Police Station once a month, specifically on the second Sunday, between 10:00 AM and 6:00 PM until the final report is filed.
The court further specified that if any of these conditions are violated, the Investigating Officer is at liberty to move for the cancellation of the bail. The petitioners are to be released immediately, provided their custody is not required in any other pending cases.