Bengaluru Court Rejects Anticipatory Bail for Deekshith N Alias Bharth in Siddapura Attempt to Murder Case
The LVI Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge in Bengaluru (CCH 57) has dismissed the anticipatory bail petition filed by Deekshith N. alias Bharth alias Chinnu, who is arrayed as Accused No. 2 in a serious criminal case. The order, pronounced on August 31, 2023, denies the petitioner protection from arrest in Crime No. 211/2023 registered by the Siddapura Police Station.
The charges against Deekshith N. involve offences punishable under Section 504 (Intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace), Section 506 (Criminal intimidation), Section 307 (Attempt to murder), read with Section 34 (Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
Details of the Incident and Allegations
The case was initiated based on a complaint lodged by the injured party. The prosecution papers revealed the following sequence of events:
On August 17, 2023, the complainant returned to his house at Kanakanapalya after finishing his work at around 11:00 PM. At approximately 11:30 PM, while he was eating with his friends Nithin and Sathish, the accused persons came to his house and began knocking on the door.
When the complainant opened the door, he found Accused No. 1 and his friends, including the petitioner (Accused No. 2), present, armed with deadly weapons described as a ‘long’ and ‘machu’ (a type of sharp-edged weapon).
The accused allegedly asked for a person named Varun alias Moorki. When the complainant stated that he was not allowing anyone into his room, Accused No. 1 and his friends suddenly launched an assault. Accused No. 1 assaulted the complainant on his head and left hand, causing bleeding injuries. As the complainant and his friends shouted, the accused continued the assault, abused him in filthy language, and threatened him with dire consequences.
Following the attack, the injured complainant was shifted to Mayya Hospital for first aid and was subsequently advised by doctors to be taken to Sanjay Gandhi Hospital for further treatment.
Petitioner’s Defence and Prosecution’s Opposition
Petitioner’s Submissions:
Deekshith N. sought anticipatory bail, arguing that he was innocent and falsely implicated. His counsel, Sri. Nandeesha L., argued that there was a delay in lodging the complaint and claimed that the petitioner’s name was not found in the initial FIR or complaint. The defence emphasized that the injured person had not suffered any “vital injuries,” and stressed that the petitioner was a permanent resident of Bengaluru with no bad antecedents and was willing to abide by any conditions the court imposed.
Prosecution’s Objections:
The Learned Public Prosecutor strongly opposed the petition, submitting objections that detailed the facts of the case. The prosecution asserted that the papers clearly disclosed the petitioner’s involvement, and that the alleged offences, particularly Section 307 of the IPC, are punishable with imprisonment that can extend up to ten years or even life imprisonment in some circumstances.
The key points raised by the prosecution that influenced the court’s decision included:
- Tampering Risk: If granted bail, the petitioner might tamper with witnesses and evidence.
- Abscondence: The petitioner has been absconding since the date of the incident.
- Criminal Antecedents: The prosecution provided evidence that Accused No. 1 is involved in 19 other cases and, critically, that Accused No. 2 (Deekshith N.) was involved in 3 other cases registered at the Siddapura and Sadashivanagar police stations, directly contradicting the petitioner’s claim of having no bad antecedents.
- Investigation Status: The investigation is still in progress, and Accused Nos. 2 and 4 were yet to be arrested at the time of the hearing.
Court’s Reasoning for Dismissal
The Court found the argument of the prosecution convincing and, upon examining the gravity and nature of the offences, ruled against the petitioner.
The presiding judge noted the serious allegations made in the complaint, which involved the petitioner and co-accused arriving armed with a ‘long’ and a ‘machu’ and then assaulting the complainant on the head and hand. The fact that the assault was carried out with such dangerous weapons and resulted in bleeding injuries supports the charge of attempt to murder (Section 307 IPC).
A crucial factor was the petitioner’s past conduct. The Court recognized the material placed by the prosecution regarding the criminal history of both the main accused and the petitioner. The finding that Accused No. 2, Deekshith N., was involved in three other cases directly undermined his claim of having a clean record and increased the Court’s apprehension that he might commit similar offences, tamper with witnesses, or abscond.
Considering the severity of the offence, the nature of the weapons used, the existence of prior cases against the petitioner, and the fact that the investigation was still ongoing and his arrest was pending, the Court concluded that granting anticipatory bail was not warranted.
The Court answered Point No. 1 (entitlement to anticipatory bail) in the negative.
Final Order
In view of the findings, the LVI Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge proceeded to pass the final order:
The petition filed by the petitioner, Deekshith N. alias Bharth alias Chinnu, under Section 438 of Cr.P.C., is hereby dismissed.