The LII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bangalore, Sri. B.G. Pramoda, granted regular bail to Deepak, identified as Accused No. 2, in a case of armed robbery registered by the Peenya Police Station. The order, delivered on August 22, 2023, in Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 7950/2023, highlighted the duration of the petitioner’s judicial custody, the completion of custodial interrogation, and the principle of parity with a co-accused who had already secured bail.

Deepak, S/o Mahesh, aged 20, and a resident of Laggere, Bengaluru, was arrested in connection with Crime No. 221/2023 for the offence punishable under Section 397 (Robbery, or dacoity, with attempt to cause death or grievous hurt) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The petitioner, through his counsel Sri. T. Sateesha, sought bail under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C., arguing that he was innocent and falsely implicated by the respondent police.

Details of the Alleged Crime

The case was initially registered against “unknown persons” based on a complaint filed by Ramesh Kumar C.S. The First Information Report (FIR) detailed an incident that occurred on June 25, 2023, around 1:30 a.m. The informant was riding his TVS towards N.T.T.F. when the accused, traveling in an auto-rickshaw against the traffic, stopped him. The accused allegedly demanded money and the informant’s phone. When the informant refused, he was assaulted with an iron rod, and one ‘Plus’ mobile phone was forcibly robbed before the assailants fled the scene.

Deepak was subsequently arrested on August 8, 2023, and later remanded to judicial custody. He was identified as Accused No. 2 in the remand application.

Arguments for and Against Bail

In his petition, Deepak asserted that he is a permanent resident of the address mentioned, the sole bread-earning member for his old-aged parents, and willing to abide by any conditions imposed by the Court.

The Learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the bail plea, filing detailed objections along with the Investigating Officer’s (I.O.) report. The prosecution contended that the offence was grave and against society. It was also alleged that Deepak was a “habitual offender” involved in similar past offences and was not a permanent resident of Bengaluru—a point later contradicted by the Court’s assessment of his residency within the jurisdiction. The prosecution further expressed fears of the petitioner absconding, tampering with evidence, or threatening the informant and other prosecution witnesses if released.

Court’s Judicial Assessment and Reasoning

The Court meticulously reviewed the case facts and the status of the investigation. A critical finding was that the name of the petitioner was not mentioned in the original FIR or the complaint, which was filed against unknown persons.

The I.O. report confirmed several key developments:

1. Recovery of Weapons: An auto-rickshaw, an iron rod, and a knife—allegedly used in the commission of the offence—were seized by the police based on the statements of A-1 and A-2.
2. Completion of Custodial Interrogation: The petitioner was taken into police custody from August 9, 2023, to August 17, 2023, and was subsequently produced before the Magistrate as he was “not required for further investigation of the case.” The Court noted that since the custodial interrogation of the petitioner was complete, there was no longer a requirement to keep him in police custody.
3. Bail on Parity: The Court observed that Accused No. 4, facing similar allegations, had already been granted bail by the same Court in Crl. Misc. No. 7795/2023. Citing the principle of parity, the Court determined that Deepak should also be enlarged on bail, subject to appropriate conditions.

The Judge also reiterated the well-established legal doctrine from the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Balachandh @ Baliya (AIR 1977 SC 2447) that “bail is a rule and jail is an exception,” emphasizing the need to safeguard the fundamental right to life and liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

The Court concluded that Deepak, being a permanent resident within the Court’s jurisdiction, had no high probability of absconding. The Court found that there were no “sufficient exceptional reasons” to reject the bail application and keep the petitioner in judicial custody, especially since the offence was not exclusively punishable with death or life imprisonment.

Granting of Bail and Conditions

The petition was allowed, and Deepak was enlarged on bail, subject to furnishing a personal bond for Rs. 1,00,000/- and one surety for the like sum, to the satisfaction of the Learned Magistrate.

To address the prosecution’s concerns, the Court imposed stringent conditions:

1. Cooperation with I.O.: The petitioner must appear before the Investigating Officer as and when called for during the course of investigation and cooperate fully.
2. Regular Court Attendance: The petitioner shall appear before the Court regularly on all hearing dates during the trial of the case.
3. No Tampering: The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly induce, threaten, or promise any person acquainted with the facts of the case to dissuade them from disclosing facts to the court or police, and shall not tamper with evidence.
4. No Future Offence: The petitioner shall not commit an offence of similar nature or any other offence in the future.
5. Address Proof: The petitioner must furnish his correct address proof before the trial court.
6. No Leaving India: The petitioner shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court.
7. Violation Clause: Violation of any of the conditions would entitle the cancellation of the bail.

This decision marks a significant step for Deepak, securing his temporary liberty while affirming the Court’s ability to maintain judicial oversight and ensure the completion of the trial process.