BENGALURU, INDIA – The LXV Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City, has dismissed the anticipatory bail petition of Deepak H.K. @ Deepu (Accused No. 9) in connection with a 2021 dacoity case. The court, presided over by Shri. Hemanth Kumar. C.R, rejected the plea, noting that the petitioner is a “habitual offender” with multiple cases pending against him.

The petition, filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.), sought protection from arrest in Crime No. 388/2021 registered by the Kamakshipalya Police Station. The offences alleged against the petitioner and co-accused are punishable under Sections 395 (Punishment for dacoity), 120(B) (Criminal conspiracy), and 201 (Causing disappearance of evidence of offence) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

Background of the Dacoity Case

The case originates from a complaint lodged by Mr. Koothappan, a resident of Villupuram, Tamil Nadu. The complainant, a chicken supplier, alleged that on December 26, 2021, while he was supplying chicken and collecting cash around Laggere and Kamakshipalya chicken centers, he was targeted.

The complainant had collected a total of Rs. 5,20,000/-. He kept a sum of Rs. 1,30,000/- on the dashboard of his Eicher vehicle (bearing No. KA-51/B-2540) and stored the remaining cash below the driver and passenger seats.

Around 10:00 PM, near Summanahalli bridge, four unknown persons in a Swift car allegedly overtook and blocked the complainant’s vehicle. The assailants proceeded to assault and threaten the complainant, causing him and his companions (Ranjith and Rajesh) bleeding injuries, particularly on the head and leg. The accused then forcibly took the amount of Rs. 1,30,000/- from the dashboard.

The initial complaint was registered against unknown persons for the offence under Section 397 of IPC. However, the police investigation later identified and filed a charge sheet against nine accused persons, including Deepak H.K., for dacoity and criminal conspiracy under Sections 395, 120(B), and 201 of IPC.

Petitioner’s Grounds for Anticipatory Bail

Deepak H.K., represented by Sri. JK., Advocate, argued for bail based on several points:

1. Non-Involvement and Lack of Overt Act: The petitioner maintained his innocence, claiming false implication and asserting that neither the complaint nor the FIR mentioned his name, with no specific overt act attributed to him.
2. No Recovery: It was contended that no recovery of cash or articles was made at the instance of the present petitioner, and that the police recovered assets only from other co-accused.
3. No Need for Custodial Interrogation: The counsel highlighted that the petitioner was already arrested in a separate case (Crime No. 13/2022 of Bagalagunte police) and the Kamakshipalya police only sought a body warrant for the present case, not police custody, indicating that custodial interrogation was not required.
4. Ground of Parity: The petitioner sought bail on the ground of parity, stating that other co-accused in the same case had already been enlarged on bail.

Prosecution’s Opposition and Court’s Findings

The learned Public Prosecutor filed a strong objection, asserting that there was prima facie material available against the petitioner and that the offences were serious crimes against society. The prosecutor further argued that if released on bail, the accused was likely to threaten witnesses, abscond, and hamper the trial.

The court, after hearing both sides and perusing the records, found the prosecution’s objections compelling, particularly regarding the petitioner’s criminal history.

The key findings that led to the rejection of the bail petition were:

1. Nature of Offence: The offences under Sections 395, 120(B), and 201 of IPC are considered “an offence against the society,” indicating the severity of the alleged crime.
2. Habitual Offender Status: The court observed the objections filed by the prosecution, which indicated that the petitioner (Accused No. 9) was involved in various cases and offences across different police stations, including Crime No. 13/2022 of Bagalagunte police station. The judgment explicitly stated: “The petitioner is also involved in Crime No.13/2022 of Bagalagunte police station as such the petitioner is an habitual offender. The petitioner being an habitual offender is not entitled for the relief of anticipatory bail.”
3. Risk of Absconding/Tampering: The court concluded that if bail were granted, there were “every chances of petitioner absconding and hampering the trial,” thus outweighing the arguments put forth by the defence.

The court dismissed the arguments based on parity and lack of recovery, prioritizing the safety of the witnesses and the integrity of the judicial process due to the petitioner’s alleged status as a habitual offender.

The order concluded with the dismissal of the petition, thereby denying Deepak H.K. the relief of anticipatory bail and leaving him open to arrest by the Kamakshipalya Police.