In a notable judicial order passed on April 4, 2024, the LXVII Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City (CCH.No.68), Sri Kashim Churikhan, B.A., LL.M., allowed the anticipatory bail application filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) in Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 2842/2024. The court granted pre-arrest bail protection to Deepak N. @ Deepak Gowda in connection with Crime No. 84/2024 registered by the Magadi Road Police Station, Bengaluru. The petitioner was apprehending arrest for offences punishable under Sections 384 (extortion), 504 (intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace), and 506 (criminal intimidation) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), pending on the file of the 2nd Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (A.C.M.M.), Bengaluru.
Case Background and Prosecution Allegations
The criminal proceedings originated from a complaint lodged by a property owner against the petitioner and others at the Magadi Road Police Station.
According to the informant, he had constructed a four-story building on West of Chord Road in Bengaluru in 2014. The informant alleged that the accused filed complaints before civic departments claiming the structure was unauthorized and subsequently demanded money while issuing threats.
To counter the complaints regarding the building, the petitioner lodged complaints before the Karnataka State Pollution Control Board and the Sub-Registrar Office at Rajajinagar on March 27, 2024. The informant alleged that when he visited the Sub-Registrar Office on the same day, the petitioner confronted him, demanded ₹85 lakh, and threatened that he would not be permitted to sell a single property unless the demand was met. Furthermore, the informant alleged that the petitioner abused him in filthy language and threatened to demolish his building.
The details of the petitioner as per court records are:
- Deepak N. @ Deepak Gowda: Aged about 29 years, son of Narasimha H.N., residing at No. 72, near BGS International School, Gangasandra, Kengeri, Bengaluru – 560060.
Arguments Advanced on Behalf of the Petitioner
Appearing on behalf of the applicant, learned advocate Sri H.K. presented several grounds seeking pre-arrest protection under Section 438 Cr.P.C.:
- False Case as Counter-Blast: The defence submitted that the petitioner had merely submitted requisitions/complaints before statutory government departments highlighting illegal and unauthorized construction carried out by the informant. The criminal case was filed as a false counter-blast using the informant’s influence.
- Absence of Specific Allegations and Prima Facie Case: It was argued that the allegations were based on presumptions without specific overt acts establishing the offences charged.
- Unexplained Delay: Attention was drawn to an inordinate delay of 19 days in lodging the complaint.
- No Bad Antecedents and Non-Capital Offences: The petitioner belongs to a respectable family with no prior criminal record. The alleged offences under Sections 384, 504, and 506 IPC do not carry penalties of death or life imprisonment.
- Undertaking to Cooperate: The applicant assured the court of his full cooperation with the investigating agency, readiness to abide by all conditions, and willingness to furnish solvent sureties.
Objections Raised by the Prosecution
The Public Prosecutor strongly opposed the grant of anticipatory bail, contending that:
- Prima Facie Extortion Demand: The prosecution submitted that there were prima facie materials showing that the petitioner filed regulatory complaints to extort ₹85 lakh under threat of demolition.
- Ongoing Investigation: The investigation was incomplete, and the petitioner had been absconding since the registration of the FIR.
- Risk of Witness Tampering and Flight: The prosecution expressed concern that if enlarged on pre-arrest bail, the petitioner would threaten prosecution witnesses, destroy evidence, or flee from justice.
Judicial Findings and Detailed Legal Reasoning
The Sessions Court evaluated the complaint, case records, and arguments from both sides to decide Point No. 1: whether the petitioner made out a case for pre-arrest protection under Section 438 Cr.P.C.
1. Evaluation of Allegations and Counter-Complaints
Judge Kashim Churikhan noted that the central dispute stemmed from complaints filed before government authorities regarding unauthorized building construction. The court observed that whether the petitioner harbored a fraudulent intent to extort money or was raising civic grievances is a matter to be established during a full-fledged trial through authenticated evidence.
2. Parity with Co-Accused and Nature of Offences
The court highlighted that co-accused persons had already been enlarged on bail by the trial court. Furthermore, the offences alleged under Sections 384, 504, and 506 IPC are neither punishable with death nor with life imprisonment.
3. Balancing Investigation Needs with Personal Liberty
Holding that the petitioner’s apprehension of arrest was well-founded and that the prosecution’s concerns regarding investigation attendance and witness protection could be managed by imposing strict conditions, the court resolved Point No. 1 in the affirmative.
It remains a settled principle of criminal jurisprudence that an order deciding an anticipatory bail application is procedural 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 Imposed Conditions
Answering Point No. 1 in the affirmative, LXVII Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge Sri Kashim Churikhan allowed the petition filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. and issued the following order:
The bail petition filed by the petitioner under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is hereby allowed, subject to the following conditions:
- The petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in the event of his arrest in Crime No. 84/2024 of Magadi Road Police Station, Bengaluru, on executing his personal bond for a sum of ₹1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) along with one surety for the likesum.
- The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer within 15 days from the date of this order and assist him in investigation as and when required.
- The petitioner shall appear before the trial court on all hearing dates.
- The petitioner shall not tamper with prosecution witnesses.
- The petitioner shall not indulge in committing any offences.