The City Civil and Sessions Court in Bengaluru has passed a significant order regarding the safety of property owners and the gravity of violent attempts at theft. The LVIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Sri N. Krishnaiah, has officially rejected the regular bail application filed by Halesha S, who stands accused of trespassing into an under-construction building and brutally assaulting the owner with a hammer.
Details of the Incident and Legal Proceedings
The case, registered as Criminal Miscellaneous No. 6067/2022, stems from an incident reported by the Bagalagunte Police Station. The petitioner, Halesha S, a 23-year-old resident of T. Dasarahalli and native of Chitradurga district, was seeking release under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.). The prosecution alleged that Halesha S was involved in crimes punishable under Sections 326 (voluntarily causing grievous hurt by dangerous weapons), 448 (house-trespass), 504 (intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace), and 511 (attempting to commit offences) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
According to the prosecution’s case, the incident occurred on May 17, 2022, at approximately 6:45 AM. The accused allegedly entered an under-construction house belonging to the complainant with the intent to steal electric wiring. When the complainant noticed the intruder and attempted to apprehend him, the situation turned violent. Halesha S is alleged to have produced a hammer and launched a vicious attack, striking the complainant on the mouth, lips, and head.
The impact of the assault was severe. The court records indicate that the complainant sustained grievous injuries, including the loss of three teeth and head trauma. Following the attack, the accused fled the scene, while the injured complainant was shifted to a hospital by friends and relatives for emergency treatment.
Arguments Presented by the Defense
Representing Halesha S, Advocate Sri Nanjegowda argued that his client was absolutely innocent and had been falsely implicated in the matter. The defense contended that there were no specific allegations in the initial complaint suggesting that Halesha himself was the person attempting to cut the wire. They further suggested that the complainant’s injuries might have been the result of an accidental fall rather than a physical assault.
The defense also highlighted that the police had not seized any weapon from the petitioner’s possession and that no Test Identification Parade (TIP) had been conducted to verify the identity of the assailant. Arguing for the petitioner’s release, the counsel stated that Halesha S hails from a respectable family, has no prior criminal record, and as a permanent resident of Bengaluru, was not a flight risk.
Prosecution Opposes Bail
The Learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the bail petition. The state argued that there was substantial prima facie evidence to link Halesha S to the crime. The prosecution emphasized the brutality of the act, noting that the use of a hammer on vital parts of the body demonstrated a dangerous intent.
The Public Prosecutor expressed concerns that if the petitioner were released on bail while the investigation was still in progress, he might terrorize the complainant, tamper with evidence, or abscond from justice. The state maintained that the gravity of the injuries—classified as grievous due to the permanent disability caused by the loss of teeth—necessitated continued judicial custody.
The Court’s Observations and Final Decision
After hearing both sides and perusing the case diary, Judge N. Krishnaiah observed that the materials on record provided a strong prima facie case against the accused. The court noted that although the investigation was partially completed, the charge sheet had not yet been filed, and the nature of the offence was serious.
The Judge specifically addressed the severity of the charges, noting that while the offence under Section 326 of the IPC is not punishable by death, it does carry a potential sentence of life imprisonment. The court found that the petitioner had not only attempted theft but had caused significant bodily harm and permanent disability to a citizen protecting their property.
The court’s order emphasized that the discretionary power to grant bail must be exercised with caution, especially in cases involving violent assaults with dangerous weapons. The Judge concluded that the petitioner had failed to provide sufficient grounds for the court to grant bail at this stage.
By rejecting the bail application, the Bengaluru court has signaled a strict stance on crimes involving construction site thefts and physical violence. Halesha S remains in judicial custody as the Bagalagunte police continue their investigation into the matter. This ruling reinforces the legal protection afforded to property owners and underscores the consequences of using lethal tools as weapons during the commission of a crime.