The LXVII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge in Bengaluru has granted bail to 27-year-old Manjunath V, who was accused of being involved in a violent assault on a tipper lorry driver. The court’s decision, delivered on June 27, 2022, emphasized that the petitioner’s name was not originally mentioned in the First Information Report (FIR) and that his continued detention would serve no purpose as the investigation progresses.
Sri Kashim Churikhan, presiding over the court at CCH-68, passed the order in Crl.Misc.No.5993/2022, balancing the state’s concern for public safety with the petitioner’s right to personal liberty.
Background of the Kengunte Signal Incident
The case originated from an incident that occurred on the night of June 10, 2022. According to the prosecution’s narrative, the informant, a driver of a tipper lorry belonging to one Krishnamurthy, was transporting soil from the Tata Institute in Sadashivanagar toward Mallathahalli Lake.
At approximately 10:00 p.m., while the informant was driving near Kengunte Signal on Kengeri Main Road, three unknown individuals on a vehicle allegedly began following the lorry. The prosecution claimed that these individuals attempted to wrongfully restrain the vehicle. While the informant initially managed to reach Mallathahalli Lake to park the vehicle, the three individuals allegedly caught up and initiated a violent confrontation.
The complaint stated that the assailants abused the driver in filthy language and posed a threat to his life. The escalation turned physical when the group allegedly assaulted the informant with a stone, targeting his lips and head. Furthermore, two of the assailants were accused of dragging the complainant by his hair and slamming his head against an iron safety gate. Following the incident, the Jnanabharathi Police registered a case under Crime No. 165/2022 for offences punishable under Sections 341 (Wrongful restraint), 504 (Intentional insult), 506 (Criminal intimidation), and 307 (Attempt to murder) read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
Arguments for and Against Bail
Manjunath V, who was arrayed as Accused No. 2, moved the court for regular bail under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. His counsel, Sri Y.W., argued that the petitioner was innocent and had been falsely implicated in the matter. A key point in the defense’s argument was that the informant’s original report and the subsequent FIR were filed against “unknown persons,” and Manjunath’s name did not appear in the initial documentation.
The defense further argued that the injured driver had already been discharged from the hospital, indicating that the injuries were not life-threatening at this stage. As a permanent resident of Vijayanagar with no prior criminal record, the counsel argued that Manjunath was not a flight risk and was willing to cooperate with all judicial requirements.
The Public Prosecutor strongly opposed the petition, highlighting the severity of a Section 307 (Attempt to Murder) charge. The state expressed concern that the investigation was still in its active phase and that the petitioner, if released, might influence the witnesses or destroy evidence. The prosecution maintained that the violent nature of the unprovoked attack on a public servant (the driver) necessitated continued judicial custody.
The Court’s Reasoning and Order
Judge Kashim Churikhan, after hearing both sides, observed that the involvement of the petitioner is a matter of trial. The court noted that because the case was initially registered against unknown persons, the prosecution must prove the petitioner’s specific role through authenticated testimony during a full-fledged trial.
The court also highlighted that the Investigating Officer had not made a specific request for further custodial interrogation of the petitioner. “Languishing the petitioner in judicial custody till conclusion of the trial does not serve any purpose,” the judge noted, adding that the offences alleged are not punishable by death or life imprisonment.
The court found that the prosecution’s fears of the accused absconding or tampering with witnesses could be adequately addressed through strict conditions rather than incarceration.
Conditions of Release
The court allowed the bail petition and ordered Manjunath V to be released on a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with one surety of the like sum. The release is subject to the following conditions:
- The petitioner must appear before the Investigating Officer as and when required for the purpose of the ongoing investigation.
- He must attend all hearing dates before the trial court without fail.
- He is strictly prohibited from tampering with or threatening the prosecution witnesses.
- He must not indulge in any criminal activities while out on bail.
This ruling underscores the legal principle that bail is the rule and jail is the exception, particularly when the identity of the accused is established post-FIR and the investigation no longer requires his physical presence in custody.