Bengaluru, September 15, 2023 – In a significant development, the LXIII Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge (CCH-64) in Bengaluru today granted anticipatory bail to Aabu @ Sayyad Zaheer, who was named as Accused No. 2 in an assault case registered by the RMC Yard Police Station. The court order, issued in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 8535/2023, directs the release of the petitioner in the event of his arrest, subject to rigorous conditions.
The Case Background
The petitioner, Aabu @ Sayyad Zaheer (aged 20), S/o Sayyad Amzad, had approached the court under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) seeking pre-arrest bail in connection with Crime No. 148/2023.
The case was registered based on a complaint lodged by Sri. Kemparaju S/o Thomas on August 18, 2023. The complainant alleged that on August 17, 2023, at approximately 10:30 p.m. near NPS School, a confrontation escalated into a serious assault. The First Information Report (FIR) named five accused persons, including the petitioner (Accused No. 2).
The offences invoked by the police include serious, non-bailable charges, specifically Section 307 (Attempt to Murder), along with bailable offences under Sections 341 (Wrongful Restraint), 323 (Voluntarily Causing Hurt), 504 (Intentional Insult to Provoke Breach of Peace), 506 (Criminal Intimidation), read with Section 34 (Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
Petitioner’s Submissions and Prosecution’s Stance
During the hearing, the petitioner’s counsel, Sri. Venkataeshappa, argued that the petitioner was innocent and was not initially named in the FIR or the complaint. He contended that the offences were bailable in nature at the time of the initial crime stage, and the ingredients of Section 307 IPC did not apply to his client. He further submitted that the petitioner is a permanent resident of Mysuru and was ready to comply with any conditions imposed by the court.
The Public Prosecutor, opposing the application, argued that the materials collected during the investigation prima-facie disclosed the commission of the alleged offences and prayed for the dismissal of the bail petition.
Court’s Rationale for Granting Bail
Presiding Judge, Sri. A.V. Patil, B.Com., LL.B., addressed the points of consideration and ultimately ruled in the affirmative, citing several key reasons:
- Nature of Offences: The Court noted that barring the charge under Section 307 of IPC, all other offences alleged are bailable in nature.
- Punishment: The non-bailable Section 307 is not punishable with death or imprisonment for life.
- Safety of the Injured: Crucially, the court observed that the injured/complainant lodged the complaint after taking treatment at K.C. General Hospital, leading to the inference that the life of the injured is out of danger.
- Principle of Parity: The Court emphasized that Accused No. 1 and Accused No. 3 in the same case had already been enlarged on bail in a separate Crl. Misc. petition (No. 8146/2023).
- Judicial Maxim: The judgment reiterated the legal principle that “Bail is rule and jail is exception” and held that the truth regarding the petitioner’s involvement would be ascertained during the trial.
The court concluded that the petitioner’s apprehension of arrest was well-founded and could be taken care of by imposing suitable conditions.
Bail Conditions Imposed
The anticipatory bail was granted, subject to the petitioner executing a personal bond for Rs. 70,000/- with two sureties for a like sum. The following conditions were strictly imposed:
- The petitioner shall appear before the respondent police within 20 days from the date of the order.
- The petitioner shall not tamper with the prosecution witnesses in any manner.
- The petitioner shall appear before the Court during trial and co-operate for the disposal of the case.
- The petitioner shall not commit similar offences alleged against him.
- The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer (I.O.) as and when called for investigation.
- The petitioner shall furnish an attested copy of his Aadhaar card and present residential address proof to the I.O.
The order explicitly clarified that the grant of anticipatory bail does not, in any manner, limit or restrict the rights and duties of the police or the investigating agency to continue their investigation into the charges against the petitioner.