The Court of the LX Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH 61), presided over by Sri Narashimsa M.V., B.Com., LL.B., allowed the anticipatory bail application in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 2864/2024 on April 2, 2024. The judicial order extended pre-arrest bail protection to Qutub Barid (Accused No. 1), Syed Hashmathulla (Accused No. 2), Nihal Frukhan Sharrif (Accused No. 3), and Mohammed Umar (Accused No. 4) in connection with Crime No. 87/2024 registered by the R.T. Nagar Police Station, Bengaluru. The petitioners faced apprehension of arrest for alleged offences punishable under Sections 143 (unlawful assembly), 147 (rioting), 323 (voluntarily causing hurt), 324 (voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means), 326 (voluntarily causing grievous hurt by dangerous weapons or means), 427 (mischief causing damage), 448 (house-trespass), 504 (intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace), and 506 (criminal intimidation) read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
Factual Matrix and Prosecution Allegations
The criminal proceedings originated from a road-rage incident that escalated into a physical altercation on March 15, 2024. According to the complaint lodged on March 16, 2024, at 4:10 PM by Mohammed Aneesh, he and his associate Mohammed Harries were riding a two-wheeler near Pooja Bakery when Aneesh applied sudden brakes. A two-wheeler trailing behind collided with their bike, leading to a heated verbal confrontation between the riders.
The complainant alleged that later that evening, two individuals accompanied by 7 to 8 associates forcibly entered their room, destroyed building property and window panes, and assaulted the occupants. Complainant’s colleague, Mohammed Harries, sustained facial injuries requiring medical treatment, and a security guard named Balakumar was also allegedly assaulted. A second assault incident was reported around 9:00 PM the same night against other individuals (Akil Zain, Houshad, and Ajith) near a local hotel. Based on these statements, an FIR was initially registered against unknown persons.
The details of the petitioners as per court records are:
- Qutub Barid (Petitioner No. 1 / Accused No. 1): Aged 27 years, son of Iqbal Pasha, residing at 14/1-1, 5th Main, 5th Cross, Patel Down, Rahamath Nagar, Bengaluru – 560 032.
- Syed Hashmathulla (Petitioner No. 2 / Accused No. 2): Aged 26 years, son of Syed Inayathulla, residing at 64/1, 6th Cross, Jalgermamma Temple Street, Chamundi Nagar, R.T. Nagar, Bengaluru – 560 032.
- Nihal Frukhan Sharrif (Petitioner No. 3 / Accused No. 3): Aged 26 years, son of Ansar Pasha, residing at No. 267, 5th Main Road, 5th Cross, Rahamathnagara, R.T. Nagar, Bengaluru – 560 032.
- Mohammed Umar (Petitioner No. 4 / Accused No. 4): Aged 36 years, son of Mokthar Pasha, residing at No. 10/2, 3rd Floor, R.T. Nagar, Bengaluru – 560 032.
Submissions Advanced on Behalf of the Petitioners
Appearing on behalf of the applicants, learned advocate Sri Sathish T. submitted that the petitioners were innocent and falsely implicated. The defense pointed out a significant delay of over 12 hours in lodging the initial FIR following the incident, raising questions regarding the credibility of the narrative.
Importantly, the defense submitted medical OPD records and Medico-Legal Case (MLC) casualty slips from Bowring & Lady Curzon Hospital, demonstrating that the petitioners had also sustained physical injuries during the clash on March 15, 2024, and had undergone medical treatment. The defense contended that when the petitioners approached the jurisdictional police to file a counter-complaint regarding their injuries, the police refused to register their complaint and subsequently named them as accused in the primary case. Counsel maintained that the offences alleged do not carry the death penalty or life imprisonment and assured the court that the petitioners would fully cooperate with the investigation.
Prosecution Objections and State Arguments
The Public Prosecutor strongly opposed the grant of pre-arrest protection by submitting formal objections along with a report from the Investigating Officer. The prosecution submitted that the accused group committed trespass, damaged property, and inflicted grievous injuries resulting in nasal surgery for one of the victims. The state expressed apprehension that if enlarged on anticipatory bail, the petitioners might threaten prosecution witnesses, destroy evidence, or obstruct ongoing police investigation.
Judicial Findings and Legal Reasoning
Upon examining the FIR, the initial complaint, and the medical casualty reports issued by Bowring & Lady Curzon Hospital, Judge Narashimsa M.V. evaluated whether the petitioners had established grounds for pre-arrest relief under Section 438 of Cr.P.C.
The court observed that the medical records on file established that the petitioners themselves suffered physical injuries on the date of the incident and received hospital treatment, supporting the existence of a case and counter-case situation. The court noted that determining which party acted as the primary aggressor during the street confrontation remained a matter for full-fledged trial.
Additionally, the court noted that the FIR was originally registered against unknown individuals and the physical injuries on both sides required trial determination. Considering that the alleged IPC offences do not carry mandatory death or life imprisonment sentences, the court concluded that the prosecution’s concerns regarding investigation cooperation and witness protection could be effectively managed by imposing strict conditions.
Final Order and Imposed Conditions
Answering the point for consideration in the affirmative, the Sessions Court allowed the petition filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. and granted anticipatory bail to Qutub Barid, Syed Hashmathulla, Nihal Frukhan Sharrif, and Mohammed Umar in Crime No. 87/2024 of R.T. Nagar Police Station.
The court directed that in the event of their arrest, the petitioners shall be released on bail upon executing a personal bond for ₹50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) each with one surety for the likesum, subject to the following conditions:
- The petitioners shall execute a personal bond for a sum of ₹50,000/- each with one surety for the likesum.
- The petitioners shall not leave the jurisdiction of the court without prior permission.
- The petitioners shall not threaten the witnesses or destruct the evidence collected against them.
- The petitioners shall not involve themselves in any kind of offence henceforth.
- The petitioners shall appear before the learned Magistrate on the next date of hearing.
- The petitioners shall appear before the Investigating Officer on or before April 17, 2024, and cooperate with the investigation in all respects.