BENGALURU – The LXIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Court has dismissed an anticipatory bail petition filed by 28-year-old Ravi Kumar, alias Ravi, who is accused of preparing to commit dacoity and assaulting police officers nearly a decade ago. The court noted that the petitioner had previously been granted bail but chose to abscond, leading to the case being split and a non-bailable warrant being issued against him.

The order was delivered by Judge Sri. A.V. Patil on July 16, 2022. The petitioner, a resident of Nagarabhavi, sought protection from arrest under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in connection with Crime No. 301/2013, registered at the Jnanabharathi Police Station. The charges against him include violations of Sections 399 (Making preparation to commit dacoity), 402 (Assembling for purpose of committing dacoity), 120(B) (Criminal conspiracy), and 332 (Voluntarily causing hurt to deter public servant from his duty) of the Indian Penal Code.

The 2013 Incident and Prosecution Case

The roots of the case trace back to the early hours of August 8, 2013. According to the prosecution, at approximately 1:00 a.m., Ravi Kumar and several other accomplices were allegedly found standing at a road junction near the VV Head Office and Sai Sports Road in Bengaluru. The group was reportedly armed with deadly weapons and was allegedly conspiring to intercept and rob members of the public of their cash and gold ornaments.

When police officials arrived at the scene to apprehend the suspects, the group allegedly resisted arrest. The prosecution claims that the accused persons assaulted the police officers, causing physical harm to prevent the public servants from discharging their lawful duties. Following a detailed investigation, the Jnanabharathi Police filed a charge sheet against the group.

Procedural History and the Split-Up Case

Ravi Kumar was originally named as Accused No. 1 in the primary case. During the initial stages of the legal proceedings, he was enlarged on bail. However, the court records indicate a significant lapse in his appearance before the court in the original case (CC No. 24161/2015).

Due to the petitioner’s prolonged absence and status as an absconding accused, the learned IX ACMM Court in Bengaluru was forced to order a “split-up” of the case. While the trial for other accused persons proceeded, a new case number, CC No. 15570/2016, was registered specifically to deal with Ravi Kumar whenever he was apprehended or surrendered.

Arguments for and against Anticipatory Bail

The petitioner’s counsel, Sri. Srinivas R., argued that Ravi Kumar is an innocent individual who has been falsely implicated by the police. The defense contended that the investigation was already complete and a charge sheet had been filed, meaning custodial interrogation was no longer necessary. It was further argued that Ravi is the sole earning member of a respectable family and that there was no specific “overt act” attributed to him in the alleged crime.

The Public Prosecutor strongly opposed the petition, highlighting the petitioner’s history of non-compliance. The state argued that filing a charge sheet based on credible evidence established a prima facie case against him. Most importantly, the prosecution emphasized that the petitioner had “jumped bail”—a term used when an accused violates bail conditions by failing to appear in court.

The Court’s Decision and Reasoning

Judge A.V. Patil, after examining the certified copies of the order sheets from the lower court, observed that the petitioner’s conduct did not warrant the court’s discretionary protection. The court noted that a Non-Bailable Warrant (NBW) is currently active against Ravi Kumar because he stopped attending court proceedings after his initial release.

The judge remarked that the petitioner offered no explanation or “whisper” as to why he failed to appear in the original proceedings for several years. The court held that when an individual jumps bail and evades the legal process, they lose the right to seek anticipatory bail for the same or related proceedings.

“As the NBW is issued against the petitioner for jumping the conditions imposed while releasing him on bail, the petitioner is not entitled for anticipatory bail,” the order stated. The court concluded that Ravi Kumar had failed to make out any valid grounds for relief and dismissed the petition, effectively clearing the way for the police to execute the arrest warrant.