BENGALURU – A Bengaluru City Civil and Sessions Court has dismissed the anticipatory bail application filed by a 35-year-old man, Mahesha, who is an accused in a decade-old case involving preparation for dacoity. The court ruled that an accused who has previously jumped bail and caused the trial court to issue a Non-Bailable Warrant (NBW) is not entitled to the discretionary relief of anticipatory bail.

The order was passed by Sri Kashim Churikhan, the LXVII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru. The petitioner, Mahesha, a resident of Yaraganahalli Village in Mandya District, sought protection from arrest in connection with Crime No. 453/2014 registered at the Banasawadi Police Station.

The 2014 Dacoity Preparation Case

The roots of the case date back to August 18, 2014. According to the police report, at approximately 8:45 p.m., patrolling officers received credible information regarding a group of five unknown individuals gathered in a vacant space near the service road at the Babusapalya Bus-stop in HRBR Layout. The informants alleged that the assembly was armed with deadly weapons, specifically clubs, and was making active preparations to commit dacoity on pedestrians and road users in the area.

Following the investigation, Mahesha was arraigned as Accused No. 2. While other co-accused (Accused No. 1 and 4) were eventually acquitted in separate trials in 2016 and 2021, the case against Mahesha remained pending due to his continued absence from court proceedings.

Arguments for Anticipatory Bail

The petitioner’s counsel argued that Mahesha was innocent and had been falsely implicated. A significant part of the defense relied on the fact that he had actually been granted bail during the initial stages of the crime in 2014 and had been appearing regularly. However, the defense claimed that Mahesha subsequently met with an accident, which prevented him from attending further court dates.

The counsel further argued that during the Covid-19 pandemic, Mahesha did not receive any formal notices from the court, which led to his unintentional absence. This absence resulted in the trial court splitting the case against him and issuing a Non-Bailable Warrant. The defense emphasized that Mahesha has deep roots in society, no criminal antecedents, and was ready to abide by any conditions imposed by the court.

Prosecution Opposes the Plea

The Public Prosecutor strongly opposed the petition, highlighting that the petitioner had already been granted liberty once and had violated the trust of the court by disappearing. The state argued that Mahesha had failed to provide any genuine medical documentation to prove the alleged accident that supposedly prevented his appearance. The prosecution raised concerns that if granted anticipatory bail now, the petitioner might once again flee from justice, destroy evidence, or threaten witnesses, further delaying a trial that has already been stalled for years.

The Courts Reasoning and Final Verdict

After hearing both sides, Judge Kashim Churikhan noted that the records clearly showed Mahesha was well aware of the pendency of the case, having participated in the bail process initially. The court observed that the petitioner failed to comply with the conditions imposed upon him during his first release on bail.

A critical legal point was raised regarding the maintainability of an anticipatory bail plea when an NBW is active against an accused who has previously jumped bail. The court cited a landmark decision by the Karnataka High Court in the case of Dr. A. Ebenezer vs. State of Karnataka (ILR 2002 Kar 5003). The precedent establishes that once an accused has been released on bail and subsequently goes missing, leading to the issuance of an NBW, they are not entitled to seek the discretionary relief of anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C.

The court found that there was no merit in the petition as the petitioner’s own conduct in violating prior bail conditions disqualified him from the relief sought. Consequently, the court dismissed the petition.

However, the court did provide a path for the petitioner to regularize his status. The judge directed Mahesha to appear before the jurisdictional magistrate court (XI A.C.M.M, Bengaluru) to seek an order for recalling the Non-Bailable Warrant against him through the appropriate legal channels.

This ruling underscores the judiciary’s stance on bail jumping, reiterating that anticipatory bail is a discretionary power meant for those fearing false arrest, not for those attempting to bypass the consequences of failing to appear for trial.