In a judicial order delivered on April 4, 2024, the LXII Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City (CCH.63), Sri A. Earanna, M.Com., LL.M., allowed the regular bail application filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 3065/2024. The court enlarged Gopikumar @ Gopi (Accused No. 2) on regular bail in connection with Crime No. 204/2022 registered by the City Market Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 399 (making preparation to commit dacoity) and 402 (assembling for purpose of committing dacoity) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), pending on the file of the IX Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (ACMM), Bengaluru.

Case Background and Prosecution Allegations

The criminal proceedings originated from a report lodged by an Assistant Sub-Inspector (ASI) of the City Market Police Station. According to the prosecution, on December 26, 2022, the ASI received credible information indicating that a group of individuals had assembled behind the Chickpet Metro Station in Bengaluru with the intention to commit dacoity and rob money and valuables from passersby under threat of violence.

Upon receiving the information, the complainant ASI, along with police staff, raided the spot behind Chickpet Metro Station, where they observed five persons armed with deadly weapons, including a long knife, a club, and an iron rod. Upon noticing the police approach, two individuals managed to flee the scene, while three suspects were surrounded and apprehended on the spot.

The police seized one knife, one club, and an iron rod from the apprehended individuals under a spot mahazar. A formal complaint was lodged, leading to the registration of Crime No. 204/2022 under Sections 399 and 402 IPC. The petitioner was arrested and remanded to judicial custody. Following the completion of the investigation, the police submitted a formal charge-sheet.

The details of the petitioner as per court records are:

• Gopikumar @ Gopi (Accused No. 2): Aged about 28 years, son of Bharati Mohan, residing at No. 110, 1st Cross, A Lane, Bank Colony, Vinayaka Talkies, near Anjanappa Garden, Bengaluru.

Arguments Advanced on Behalf of the Petitioner

Appearing on behalf of the applicant, learned advocate Sri Umesh T.K. presented several grounds seeking regular bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C.:

• Claim of Innocence and False Implication: The petitioner maintained that he was innocent of the alleged offences, was falsely implicated by the police, and that no incriminatory property was seized from his person.
• Prior Grant of Bail and Non-Bailable Warrant (NBW) Context: Counsel highlighted that the petitioner had previously been granted bail in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 25/2023 on October 6, 2023, and was attending court regularly. However, due to sudden ill-health, he remained absent on a subsequent hearing, leading to the issuance and execution of an NBW, resulting in his re-arrest and remand to judicial custody.
• Completion of Investigation: The defence emphasized that the investigation was complete, the charge-sheet had been filed, and custodial interrogation was no longer required.
• Local Residency and Undertaking: The petitioner is a permanent resident of Bengaluru, has no prior criminal antecedents, and offered to abide by all court conditions and furnish adequate sureties for his regular attendance.

Prosecution Objections

The Public Prosecutor, supported by an Investigating Officer report, strongly opposed the bail petition, submitting that:

• Grave and Non-Bailable Offences: The charges under Sections 399 and 402 IPC are non-bailable, involving a planned conspiracy to commit armed dacoity in a public place.
• Violation of Bail Conditions: The prosecution argued that the petitioner had previously violated the terms of his bail by failing to appear before the trial court, leading to the issuance of an NBW.
• Risk of Recidivism and Flight: The prosecution expressed serious apprehension that if enlarged on bail again, the petitioner would abscond, fail to appear for trial, threaten prosecution witnesses, or repeat similar criminal activities.

Judicial Findings and Detailed Legal Reasoning

The Sessions Court examined the charge-sheet materials, case history, and rival submissions to evaluate Point No. 1: whether the petitioner made out sufficient grounds for regular bail.

1. Re-arrest Context and Status of Investigation

Judge A. Earanna noted that the petitioner had already been granted bail earlier in the proceedings and that his re-arrest occurred following his non-appearance due to alleged ill-health. The court highlighted that the investigating agency had completed its inquiry and filed the charge-sheet. Consequently, the court held that further custodial detention was uncalled for, as no further interrogation was required.

2. Nature of Offences

The court observed that the offences alleged under Sections 399 and 402 IPC do not carry mandatory sentences of death or life imprisonment.

3. Application of Precedents on Bail Principles

The Special Court referenced key Supreme Court guidelines governing bail applications in non-bailable offences:

• The State v. Captain Jagjit Singh (AIR 1962 SC 253): The Apex Court outlined core considerations including the nature and seriousness of charges, character of evidence, possibility of securing the presence of the accused at trial, and reasonable apprehension of witness tampering.
• Central Bureau of Investigation v. V. Vijay Sai Reddy [(2013) 7 SCALE 15]: The Supreme Court affirmed that at the bail stage, courts examine whether “reasonable grounds for believing” exist rather than assessing guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, balancing the severity of punishment against the possibility of securing attendance.

4. Balancing Attendance Concerns with Conditions

The court held that because the petitioner is a permanent resident of Bengaluru willing to provide sureties, the risk of him fleeing from justice could be managed by imposing strict conditions.

It remains a settled principle of criminal jurisprudence that an order deciding a bail application is procedural and does not constitute an expression on the ultimate guilt or innocence of the accused, which remains subject to full-fledged trial.

Final Order and Imposed Conditions

Answering Point No. 1 in the affirmative, LXII Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge Sri A. Earanna allowed the petition filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. and passed the following order:

The bail petition filed by the petitioner under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is hereby allowed, subject to the following conditions:

1. The petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in Crime No. 204/2022 on executing a personal bond for Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) with one surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the court.
2. The petitioner shall not hold any threat to the complainant and shall not tamper with any of the prosecution witnesses directly or indirectly.
3. The petitioner shall furnish his residential address proof and that of his surety.
4. The petitioner shall not indulge in similar type of offences in future.
5. The petitioner shall appear before the trial court regularly without fail upon receipt of summons.
6. If the petitioner fails to obey any of the above conditions, this bail order shall automatically stand cancelled.