The LX Additional City Civil and Sessions Court in Bengaluru has rejected the anticipatory bail application filed by three individuals accused of receiving and dealing in stolen property. The court, presided over by Judge Narashimsa M.V., ruled that the petition was not maintainable given the prior legal history of the case and the existing status of the accused individuals before the trial court.
Background of the Bommanahalli Burglary Case
The case, registered under Crime No. 74/2020 at the Bommanahalli Police Station, originated from a burglary reported by Sri Rajshekhar on March 6, 2020. According to the first information report (FIR), the complainant and his parents had left their residence for work in the morning. Upon his mother’s return at approximately 6:20 p.m., she discovered that the house had been broken into. The locks were found tampered with, and several valuables, including a gold chain, earrings, silver rings, and cash amounting to Rs 40,000, were missing.
Following a detailed investigation, the police filed a charge sheet on February 9, 2021, naming five individuals. While Accused No. 1 and 2 were charged with the actual burglary, the petitioners—Mangilal alias Raju (Accused No. 3), Harish alias Harlal Devasi (Accused No. 4), and Raju (Accused No. 5)—were charged with receiving the stolen property from the primary offenders.
Arguments Presented by the Petitioners
The petitioners sought protection from arrest under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.). Their counsel, Sri Anitha, argued that the accused were innocent and had been falsely implicated based solely on the alleged voluntary statements of Accused No. 1 and 2.
The defense further highlighted that the petitioners had previously been granted bail by the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in 2021. However, due to their failure to appear before the Magistrate, a split-up charge sheet was filed against them. They claimed to be the sole bread earners for their families and expressed a genuine apprehension of being arrested by the police. They assured the court that they would abide by any conditions imposed if granted relief.
Prosecution Opposes Bail Citing Habitual Offending
The Public Prosecutor filed a strong objection to the bail application. The prosecution contended that Mangilal, Harish, and Raju are “habitual offenders” whose primary business involves purchasing and dealing in stolen goods.
The state argued that the accused are involved in multiple criminal cases and that granting them anticipatory bail would be detrimental to the legal process. Furthermore, the prosecution raised a procedural objection, stating that under the specific facts of this case, an application for anticipatory bail was legally unmaintainable.
The Court’s Reasoning and Legal Precedents
In its detailed analysis, the court examined the order sheets of the split-up case (CC No. 18220/2021). The records revealed that Accused No. 3 and 4 had previously been in judicial custody, while Accused No. 5 had already secured anticipatory bail from the High Court.
Judge Narashimsa M.V. noted that the accused had actually appeared before the learned Magistrate on February 28, 2022, at which time previous warrants and proclamations against them were recalled. However, a procedural complication arose when the Sessions Court returned the committal papers because the accused had failed to secure regular bail from the Magistrate’s court following the committal.
The court relied on a significant legal precedent: Venkatachalaiah v. State of Karnataka (ILR 2003 Karnataka 3985). This ruling establishes that once an accused has appeared before a trial court and subsequently remains absent, the remedy of anticipatory bail is no longer available to them. In such instances, the proper legal course is to apply for the recall of any warrants issued for their absence.
Final Decision
The court observed that as of June 13, 2022, no Non-Bailable Warrant (NBW) had even been issued against the petitioners by the Magistrate. Since they had already been enlarged on bail by the High Court in the past and were currently at a stage where their presence was being exempted through exemption petitions, the court found no “reasonable apprehension” of arrest.
The judge concluded that the petition for anticipatory bail was a redundant and improper legal move. Consequently, the court rejected the application filed by Mangilal, Harish, and Raju, directing them to follow the standard trial procedures before the jurisdictional Magistrate.