In a notable judicial order passed on April 10, 2024, the Court of the LVI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH 57), presided over by Sri T. Govindaiah, B.Com., LL.B., allowed the anticipatory bail application filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) in Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 3056/2024. The court granted pre-arrest bail protection to 22-year-old Chetan Kumar N in connection with Crime No. 17/2024 registered by the Madivala Police Station, Bengaluru. The petitioner faced apprehension of arrest for alleged offences punishable under Sections 342 (wrongful confinement), 394 (voluntarily causing hurt in committing robbery), and 397 (robbery, or dacoity, with attempt to cause death or grievous hurt) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), pending on the file of the XXXII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (A.C.M.M.), Bengaluru.

Factual Background and Prosecution Allegations

The criminal proceedings originated from a complaint lodged at the Madivala Police Station concerning an alleged extortion incident initiated through a social networking platform. According to the complainant, he came into contact with the accused persons through the location-based dating application “Grindr.”

On January 10, 2024, at approximately 1:00 AM, the complainant was called to meet near Tavarekere, specifically at No. 202, Makana House, situated in front of S.R. Apartment, 5th Cross, near Venkateshwara College, Bengaluru. Upon entering the room, the accused persons allegedly began demanding money. When the complainant refused to comply with their financial demands, the accused shouted at him using vulgar language and subjected him to physical assault using their hands and a belt.

During the course of the subsequent police investigation, Madivala Police arrested Accused Nos. 1 to 3 on January 25, 2024. Investigating officers seized incriminating articles from the custody of the arrested co-accused, including a dagger, a belt, mobile phones, and cash amounting to ₹20,000/-. Chetan Kumar N was subsequently implicated in the ongoing probe, prompting his application for pre-arrest bail.

The details of the petitioner as per court records are:

• Chetan Kumar N (Petitioner): Aged about 22 years, son of Nagesh Murthy C, residing at No. 77, 3rd Main Road, T. Channaiah Layout, Near Nagawara Circle, Nagawara, Bengaluru.

Arguments Advanced on Behalf of the Petitioner

Appearing on behalf of the applicant, learned advocate Sri Keshava Murthy M. presented several grounds seeking pre-arrest protection under Section 438 Cr.P.C.:

• Claim of Innocence and False Implication: The petitioner maintained that he was entirely innocent of the alleged offences, was in no way concerned with the incident at Tavarekere, and had been falsely implicated by the investigating agency.
• Young Age and Family Status: The 22-year-old petitioner is the sole earning member supporting his family, with deep roots in Bengaluru society as a permanent resident of Nagawara.
• Non-Capital Offences: The defence pointed out that the alleged offences do not attract the death penalty or life imprisonment.
• Principle of Parity: Counsel emphasized that Accused Nos. 1 to 3, from whom physical recoveries (dagger, belt, cash, and mobile phones) were made, had already been enlarged on bail by the competent court. Consequently, the petitioner was entitled to similar relief under the doctrine of parity.
• Undertaking: The applicant assured the court of his readiness to abide by all imposed conditions, appear before the Investigating Officer, and furnish solvent sureties.

Prosecution Objections and State Arguments

The Public Prosecutor strongly opposed the grant of anticipatory bail, filing a formal statement of objections:

• Gravity of Allegations: The prosecution submitted that the accused group engaged in targeted extortion and robbery by misusing digital networking applications, using weapons and physical violence to intimidate the victim.
• Apprehension of Interference and Flight: The state expressed serious apprehension that if enlarged on pre-arrest bail, the petitioner would tamper with prosecution evidence, intimidate the complainant or public witnesses, fail to cooperate with the investigation, or engage in similar criminal activities.

Judicial Findings and Detailed Legal Reasoning

The Sessions Court evaluated the complaint, FIR records, seizure mahazars, and rival submissions to determine whether the petitioner made out sufficient grounds for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C.

1. Parity with Co-Accused and Status of Recovery

Judge T. Govindaiah observed that the primary physical recoveries—including the alleged weapon (dagger), belt, mobile phones, and cash of ₹20,000/—-had already been effected from Accused Nos. 1 to 3 upon their arrest on January 25, 2024. Since the principal co-accused from whom recoveries were made had already been granted bail, the court held that the petitioner was entitled to pre-arrest protection on the ground of parity.

2. Adjudication Through Trial

The court noted that the truth or falsity of the allegations, as well as the specific role played by the petitioner, remained a matter for thorough investigation and full-fledged trial. The court emphasized that the alleged offences do not carry mandatory death or life imprisonment penalties.

3. Balancing Personal Liberty with Investigation Safeguards

Holding that the petitioner is a permanent resident of Bengaluru whose presence could be secured through stringent conditions, the court resolved the point for consideration in the affirmative. The court concluded that the prosecution’s concerns regarding flight risk or witness interference could be effectively managed by imposing reporting directives.

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

Final Pre-Arrest Bail Order and Conditions Imposed

Answering the point for consideration in the affirmative, the LVI Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge Sri T. Govindaiah allowed the petition filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. and passed the following order:

The petition filed by the petitioner under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. is hereby allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in the event of his arrest in Crime No. 17/2024 of Madivala Police Station, pending on the file of the XXXII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, subject to the following conditions:

• The petitioner shall execute a personal bond for ₹1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) with one surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the learned XXXII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru.
• The petitioner shall appear before the court regularly on all hearing dates.
• The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when called for.
• The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat, or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case or tamper with the evidence.
• The petitioner shall furnish his residential address proof.

Note: Violation of any of the aforementioned conditions will automatically result in the cancellation of bail.