Bengaluru Court Grants Anticipatory Bail to Gaddeppa in Yelahanka Police Case
The LXXI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge in Bengaluru City (CCH-72) has granted anticipatory bail to Gaddeppa in a case involving allegations of outraging modesty, assault, and criminal intimidation. The order, pronounced by Smt. K.S. Jyothishree on January 25, 2023, allowed the bail application filed under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.), thereby protecting the petitioner from arrest in connection with Crime No. 355/2022 registered at the Yelahanka Police Station.
Gaddeppa, a resident of Jamalpur, Shorapur, Yadgir, had been booked for offences punishable under Section 354 (Assault or criminal force to woman with intent to outrage her modesty), Section 323 (Voluntarily causing hurt), Section 504 (Intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace), and Section 506 (Criminal intimidation), all read with Section 34 (Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
Background of the Allegations
The case appears to be rooted in a pre-existing dispute between the parties. The prosecution papers revealed a history of conflict, stating that during 2021, the petitioner and other accused persons had previously assaulted the complainant, which led to a separate criminal case registered at Kodekkal police station, Surpur Taluk.
The immediate incident leading to the current complaint occurred on November 26, 2022, at about 4:30 p.m. The complainant alleged that the petitioner and the co-accused, acting with a common intention, initiated a quarrel, abused her in filthy language, assaulted her, dragged her hands, attempted to outrage her modesty, and issued life threats.
Arguments for Anticipatory Bail
The petitioner, Gaddeppa, through his counsel Sri. Mahanthesh M, sought anticipatory bail primarily on the following grounds:
- Claim of Innocence: The petitioner asserted that he was innocent and had no involvement in the alleged offences.
- Delayed Complaint: The defence pointed out that the alleged incident occurred on November 26, 2022, but the complaint was lodged significantly later, on December 3, 2022, suggesting a possible fabrication or after-thought.
- Denial of Specific Acts: The petitioner specifically denied abusing the complainant or attempting to outrage her modesty.
- Abidance of Conditions: He expressed readiness to abide by any conditions imposed by the Court for his release.
Prosecution’s Opposition
The learned Public Prosecutor filed objections vehemently opposing the grant of bail. The prosecution reiterated the serious nature of the complaint averments, asserting that there were prima facie materials available against the petitioner, particularly the attempt to outrage the complainant’s modesty (Section 354 IPC). The primary fear raised by the prosecution was that if granted bail, the petitioner might attempt to intimidate or threaten the complainant, thereby hampering justice.
Court’s Analysis and Reasoning
The LXXI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge carefully considered the submissions of both sides, including the history of the conflict between the parties.
1. Nature of Offences:
The Court noted that the offences alleged against the petitioner are not punishable with death or imprisonment for life. Furthermore, they are offences that are triable before the learned Magistrate, which reduces the necessity for continuous custodial detention.
2. Status of Investigation:
A crucial factor in the Court’s decision was the stage of the investigation. The Court observed that the Investigating Officer (I.O.) had already commenced and completed the major part of the investigation, including conducting a mahazar (spot inspection) and recording the statements of witnesses. This finding indicated that the petitioner’s custodial interrogation was likely no longer essential for furthering the investigation.
3. Need for Proof and Denial of Bail:
The Court stated that the “involvement of petitioner is yet to be proved” and that at this preliminary stage, there was absolutely no reason to deny the benefit of anticipatory bail to the petitioner, especially since the major investigative steps were already concluded. The principle of law dictates that bail should be the rule, and jail the exception, particularly when the accused’s presence is not required for custodial interrogation and the offences do not carry the highest punishment.
Final Order and Imposed Conditions
Based on the reasons that the offences were not severely punishable and the investigation was largely complete, the Court answered Point No. 1 in the affirmative and allowed the bail petition.
The final order directed the respondent police to release Gaddeppa in the event of his arrest in Crime No. 355/2022, subject to the following conditions:
- Bond and Surety: The petitioner shall execute a personal bond for Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) with one surety for the like sum.
- No Intimidation: The petitioner shall not threaten the complainant and other witnesses in the case.
This judgment provides interim relief to Gaddeppa, offering protection from arrest while the investigation and subsequent trial proceed.