Bengaluru, June 24, 2022 — The LX Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge in Bengaluru, Sri Narashimsa.M.V., rejected the bail application of Ameer Ahmed alias Ameer, who was arrayed as Accused No. 2 in Suddaguntepalya Police Station Crime No. 110/2022. The application, filed under Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.), was denied after the court found prima facie evidence of instigation in a case involving attempted murder and noted the petitioner’s history as a rowdy-sheeter.

Case Details and Allegations

The case against Ameer Ahmed and Accused No. 1 stems from an incident that occurred on April 24, 2022, around 10:20 p.m. in the Biryani Street area of Gurupanpalya, Bengaluru. The First Informant, Apsar Husain, who is the brother-in-law of Accused No. 1, alleged the following:

• The two accused, Ameer Ahmed (A-2) and Accused No. 1, approached him on a bike while he was returning from the masjid.
• They restricted his movement (Section 341 IPC).
• They hurled abusive words and questioned him about interfering in the internal matter between Accused No. 1 and his wife.
• Accused No. 1 then attacked the victim with a knife on the lower neck.
• Crucially, the complaint detailed the specific role of Accused No. 2, Ameer Ahmed, who allegedly threatened the victim and instigated Accused No. 1, asking him “not to leave the victim but to stab and kill the victim.”

The accused were charged with offences punishable under Sections 341 (Wrongful Restraint), 307 (Attempt to Murder), 504 (Intentional Insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace) read with Section 34 (Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention) of the IPC. Both accused have been in judicial custody since April 26, 2022.

Petitioner’s Arguments for Bail

The counsel for Accused No. 2, Sri. Muzammil Pasha, argued that the petitioner was innocent and was not connected to the case. The core contentions for granting bail were:

• Ameer Ahmed did not support or directly participate in the commission of the offence by Accused No. 1.
• He is only a formal friend of Accused No. 1.
• The allegations against him are vague.
• He claimed to be the sole bread earner of his family with aged parents and asserted he is not a habitual offender.
• He expressed willingness to abide by any conditions imposed by the court and furnish surety.

Prosecution’s Opposition and Judicial Reasoning

The Public Prosecutor opposed the application, submitting objections that reiterated the gravity of the offences and presented additional material from the Investigating Officer (I.O.).

The court, in its reasoning, placed heavy reliance on the specific role assigned to Accused No. 2 and his prior criminal record:

Instigation and Common Intention

The court found that the first information clearly substantiated the allegation that Accused No. 2 instigated the commission of the offence by Accused No. 1. The specific words attributed to Ameer Ahmed—”not to leave the victim but to stab and kill the victim”—demonstrated active participation through abetment, which falls under the purview of Section 34 of the IPC, attributing the full crime to both individuals. The Judge noted, “It clearly transpires that accused No. 2 has instigated commission of offence by accused No. 1.”

Criminal Antecedents and Rowdy-Sheeter Status

The court dismissed the petitioner’s claim of not being a habitual offender based on instructions provided by the I.O. The instructions revealed that Accused No. 1 and 2 are classified as rowdy-sheeters, and proceedings against them have been initiated. Specifically, against Ameer Ahmed (A-2), prior cases include:

• Suddaguntepalya P.S. Crime No. 196/2020 for offences under Sec. 20 B and 27B of NDPS Act and Sec. 506, 143 and 149 of IPC.
• The I.O.’s memo further disclosed that Accused No. 2 was previously absconding, and a non-bailable warrant had been issued against him in those cases.

Risk of Threatening Witnesses

Considering the petitioner’s record and the fact that the first informant and Accused No. 2 reside in the same locality, the court assessed the risk to the victim and witnesses. The court stated that the “possibility of he threatening the victim, witnesses by taking aid and help from other rowdy element of the locality cannot be ruled out. There would even be possibility of clashes between two groups.”

Final Order

Taking into account the nature of the offence, the manner in which it was committed, the active instigation by A-2, and the suppression of material facts (prior criminal history), the court concluded that no grounds were made out to enlarge Ameer Ahmed on bail.

The bail application filed by Accused No. 2, Ameer Ahmed alias Ameer, was rejected.