Bengaluru, October 13, 2023: The LXV Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City (CCH-66), has granted bail to Deepu R @ Kulla Deepu, the accused number one in a long-standing case of attempt to murder. The order, passed by Judge Shri. Hemanth Kumar C.R., allows the petitioner, who was recently arrested after a period of prolonged absence from court proceedings, to be released under Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.).

Deepu R, a 20-year-old resident of Nayandanahalli, was facing trial in Sessions Case (SC) No. 404/2014, arising from Crime No. 376/2012 registered by the Chandralayout Police Station for the offence punishable under 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).

Background of the Case and Accused’s Absence

The incident dates back to the night of October 3, 2012. The complainant alleged that around 9:00 PM, near Kalikamba temple, Accused No. 1 (Deepu R) and his friend intercepted him and demanded to know the whereabouts of a person named Ranjith. When the complainant stated he did not know Ranjith, he was allegedly taken to N.S. Ground where the accused persons assaulted him with deadly weapons. Based on this complaint, the police registered the case, completed the investigation, and filed a charge sheet, leading to the case being committed to the Sessions Court in 2014.

Crucially, the court records indicate that Deepu R was initially granted bail but subsequently remained absent continuously from the court proceedings, leading to the issuance of a Non-Bailable Warrant (NBW).

In his present bail petition, the petitioner’s counsel explained that the accused’s absence was not intentional but due to “bonafide reason.” It was contended that during the lockdown imposed due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the accused lost track of the case’s status due to a “lack of communication with his earlier counsel.” Believing he was required to stay at his native place, he moved out of Bengaluru. Upon his recent return to the city, the respondent police arrested and produced him before the court, leading to his judicial custody and the filing of the present bail application.

Arguments for and Against Bail

The petitioner’s counsel vehemently argued that the accused was innocent and had been falsely implicated. They contested the prosecution’s story, suggesting it was “an incredible story of the complainant” that an assault with deadly weapons could occur in a busy area. The defence also pointed out that the investigation was complete, and the petitioner was no longer required for any custodial purpose. They affirmed the petitioner’s readiness to abide by any court-imposed conditions and cooperate with the trial.

The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail, highlighting the grievous nature of the Section 307 offence. The prosecution stressed that there was prima facie material against the accused persons and expressed apprehension that if released on bail, the petitioner would threaten witnesses, destroy evidence, abscond, and ultimately hamper the trial proceedings.

Judicial Reasoning and Conclusion

The Sessions Judge, after considering the submissions and scrutinizing the case records, acknowledged the gravity of the attempt to murder charge. However, the court found merit in several points raised by the defence.

The court noted that the investigation was completed, and the charge sheet had already been filed back in 2014. Therefore, the argument that the petitioner was required for investigation did not hold relevance. While recognizing the prosecution’s apprehension that the accused might tamper with evidence or abscond, the judge decided that such fears could be sufficiently “satisfied by imposing stringent conditions.”

Addressing the accused’s period of absence, the court accepted the explanation that the petitioner’s loss of track during the COVID-19 lockdown, compounded by a lack of communication with his former counsel, appeared to be a genuine reason for his non-appearance. The judge concluded that it was “just and proper to provide another opportunity to the accused,” and that the question of guilt would ultimately be decided during the full-fledged trial.

Bail Granted with Strict Conditions

The court answered the point for consideration in the affirmative and ordered the petition to be allowed.

Deepu R @ Kulla Deepu was ordered to be released on bail in Crime No. 376/2012 (SC. No. 404/2014) upon the execution of a personal bond for Rs. 1,00,000/- with one surety for the like sum.

The bail is subject to the following strict conditions:

1. The petitioner shall appear before the court on all the dates of hearing.
2. The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer (I.O.) whenever called upon for the purpose of further investigation.
3. The petitioner shall not involve in any criminal activities.
4. The petitioner shall not tamper with the evidence and shall not threaten, induce, or allure the prosecution witnesses in whatsoever manner.
5. The petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the court without its prior permission.
6. The petitioner is required to produce permanent address proof documents.