Bengaluru Court Grants Anticipatory Bail to Chandan Gowda in Dacoity Preparation Case
In a significant judicial development, the LXIX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge in Bengaluru (CCH 70) has granted anticipatory bail to Chandan Gowda alias Chandan, who was listed as Accused No. 7 in a case related to the preparation for dacoity. The order, passed on September 1, 2023, allowed the petition filed under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.), ensuring his release in the event of arrest in Crime No. 101/2021, now pending as CC No. 18599/2023 before the 32nd ACMM Court, Bengaluru.
Chandan Gowda, aged about 25, had been booked by the Madiwala Police Station for offences punishable under Section 399 (Making preparation to commit dacoity) and Section 402 (Assembling for purpose of committing dacoity) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
Details of the Allegations
The case against Chandan Gowda and six others originated from information received by a Police Sub-Inspector (PSI) of Madiwala Police Station on July 2, 2021. According to the First Information Report (FIR), between 4:00 AM and 5:00 AM, the complainant received credible information that seven individuals had unlawfully assembled near Silk Board, Madiwala. These individuals were allegedly equipped with deadly weapons and were planning to attack and loot members of the public travelling on the road.
The police staff, acting on this information, rushed to the spot and apprehended the petitioners and the co-accused. The prosecution’s report alleges that the accused were holding deadly weapons and were actively making preparations to commit dacoity. Deadly weapons were purportedly seized from the accused persons at the spot following a mahazar (spot inspection) conducted by the police.
Petitioner’s Arguments and Ground of Parity
Chandan Gowda, through his counsel Smt. T.R. Nethravathi, filed the anticipatory bail petition asserting his innocence and claiming he was falsely implicated by the respondent police. A key argument presented by the petitioner was the ground of parity.
The petition highlighted that five of the co-accused (Accused Nos. 1 to 5) had already been enlarged on bail by the Court in previous criminal miscellaneous petitions (Crl. Misc. No. 5940/2021, 5485/2021, 5509/2021, and 5518/2021). Since other accused involved in the same case and facing the same charges had been granted bail, the petitioner contended that he was also entitled to the same relief. Furthermore, Chandan Gowda stated that he is a permanent resident of Bengaluru, belongs to a respectable family, has no bad antecedents, and is ready to abide by any conditions imposed by the Court.
Prosecution’s Opposition and Court’s Findings
The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application, submitting objections along with the Investigating Officer’s (IO) report. The prosecution argued that the offences alleged were grave and posed a threat to society. The prosecution expressed apprehension that if granted bail, Chandan Gowda might commit similar offences, abscond, threaten prosecution witnesses, or destroy evidence. The prosecutor also noted that the investigation had been completed and a charge sheet had already been filed.
After hearing both sides and scrutinizing the case records, the Court addressed the central question: whether the petitioner had made out sufficient grounds for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C.
The Court observed that the offences alleged, Section 399 and 402 of the IPC, are not punishable with death or imprisonment for life. The presiding judge emphasized that the actual determination of whether the accused were making preparations for dacoity, whether they were armed with deadly weapons, and whether the seizure of weapons was legitimate, were all matters that could only be decided after a full-fledged trial.
Crucially, the Court acknowledged the submission in the IO’s report that the presence of the petitioner was no longer required for investigation since the investigation was completed and the charge sheet had been filed. This finding significantly reduced the justification for custodial interrogation.
The Court stated that since the petitioner was ready to cooperate, furnish surety, and abide by conditions, and considering that the co-accused had already been released on bail, the petitioner was entitled to the same relief on the principle of parity. The Court concluded that the learned Public Prosecutor’s fears regarding the petitioner’s potential to abscond or tamper with evidence could be adequately mitigated by imposing stringent conditions.
Anticipatory Bail Granted with Conditions
Finding the point of consideration in the affirmative, the Court allowed the bail petition. Chandan Gowda alias Chandan was ordered to be released on anticipatory bail upon furnishing a personal bond for Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Only) with one surety for the like sum to the satisfaction of the 32nd ACMM, Bengaluru.
The grant of bail was made subject to the following stringent conditions:
- Appearance: The petitioner must appear before the trial court within 30 days from the date of the order.
- No Tampering/Threat: The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly induce, threaten, or promise any person acquainted with the facts of the case to deceive them or hamper with the witnesses.
- Future Conduct: The petitioner shall not commit offences of a similar nature or any other offences in the future.
- Residence Proof: The petitioner must furnish his correct address proof before the trial court.
- Travel Restrictions: The petitioner shall not leave India without the previous sanction of the Court.
- Cooperation: The petitioner must appear before the court regularly and cooperate for the speedy disposal of the case.
The order explicitly warned that the violation of any of these conditions would automatically lead to the cancellation of the bail granted to the petitioner.