In a significant judicial order passed on April 18, 2024, the LXVIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City (CCH-69), Sri Sabappa, B.Com., LL.B. (Spl.), allowed the bail petition filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 2935/2024. The court enlarged Abishek alias Dharma (Accused No. 2), Ganesh U.R. alias Gani (Accused No. 3), and Kishor S. alias Kachori (Accused No. 5) on regular bail in connection with Crime No. 352/2023 (C.C. No. 2441/2024) registered by the Puttenahalli Police Station. The petitioners were facing prosecution for offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, and 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

Factual Background and Prosecution Allegations

The criminal proceedings were set into motion following a complaint lodged by Smt. Soumya M., wife of the deceased Sahadev. According to the complainant, on November 8, 2023, her husband, a painter by profession, returned home at around 3:00 PM after finishing work, had lunch, and went back out. He returned briefly at 6:30 PM before leaving again. When she called him at 8:30 PM, he mentioned he would return shortly. Subsequent calls made around 9:10 PM went unanswered.

Shortly thereafter, her mother-in-law informed her that Sahadev had been assaulted and taken to Supra Hospital. On her way, near Lakshmi Condiments at 2nd Main Road Cross, Eshwar Layout, she noticed bloodstains, a cap, and slippers belonging to her husband. She was informed that he was being transferred to Victoria Hospital due to the severity of his injuries. Upon arriving at Victoria Hospital, she learned that Sahadev had succumbed to multiple severe weapon injuries inflicted on his chest, ribs, head, and forehead.

An eye-witness, Anand, who was with Sahadev at around 9:15 PM near Lakshmi Condiments, stated that an unknown person approached them asking for “Kalla Naveen.” When Sahadev inquired why he was asking, the individual struck Sahadev on the head with a wooden stick, while 4 to 5 accompanying individuals assaulted him with sharp weapons. Based on these allegations against 5 to 6 unknown persons, Crime No. 352/2023 was registered. During the course of investigation, the police arrested the petitioners and arrayed them as Accused Nos. 2, 3, and 5.

The details of the petitioners as per court records are:

• Abishek alias Dharma (Accused No. 2): Aged 27 years, son of Anand, residing at Chuchaghatta Main Road, Bengaluru; native of Balethotanahalli Village, Thali Taluk, Krishnagiri District, Tamil Nadu.
• Ganesh U.R. alias Gani (Accused No. 3): Aged 25 years, son of late Umesha, residing at Kaverinagar, Banashankari 2nd Stage, Bengaluru.
• Kishor S. alias Kachori (Accused No. 5): Aged 23 years, son of Shiva, residing near Tippu Circle, Avalahalli, Bengaluru.

Arguments Advanced by the Defence

Appearing on behalf of the petitioners, learned advocate Sri Kambesh M. submitted several grounds seeking regular bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C.:

• Innocence and Absence from FIR: The petitioners maintained that they were completely innocent, had no connection to the crime directly or indirectly, and were not named in the initial FIR or remand applications.
• Lack of Direct Recovery: Counsel emphasized that no incriminating materials or weapons were recovered directly from the personal possession of these petitioners during investigation.
• Medical Treatment and Status: It was submitted that Abishek (Accused No. 2) had sustained injuries prior to the incident on October 4, 2023, and was undergoing medical treatment, as reflected in medical records.
• Completion of Investigation: The respondent police completed the investigation and submitted the final charge-sheet (C.C. No. 2441/2024), rendering further custodial interrogation unnecessary.
• Parity and Absence of Antecedents: Co-accused persons had already been enlarged on bail in Crl.Misc. Nos. 1826/2024 and 1884/2024. The petitioners are sole breadwinners for their families with no prior criminal antecedents.

Prosecution Objections

The Public Prosecutor, relying on the objection report filed by the Police Inspector of Puttenahalli Police Station, strongly opposed the petition, contending that:

• Serious Offence Under Section 302 IPC: The petitioners actively participated in an unlawful assembly armed with deadly weapons, resulting in the brutal murder of Sahadev. Offence under Section 302 IPC carries penalties of death or life imprisonment.
• Voluntary Statements and Recoveries: During investigation, the accused confessed to their involvement, leading to the recovery of vehicles, mobile phones, and material objects used in the crime under spot panchanamas.
• Apprehension of Witness Tampering: If enlarged on bail, there is a strong likelihood that the petitioners would abscond, threaten prosecution witnesses, tamper with evidence, and send a wrong message to society.

Judicial Analysis and Legal Reasoning

The Sessions Court evaluated the charge-sheet materials, FIR, and rival contentions to decide Point No. 1: whether the petitioners made out sufficient grounds for regular bail.

1. Anonymous Initial Complaint and Investigation Progress

Judge Sabappa observed that the FIR was registered against 5 to 6 unknown persons. Neither the complainant nor the initial statement of the eye-witness named the petitioners. Their names surfaced solely during subsequent investigation.

2. Lack of Direct Weapon Recovery and Absence of Eyewitness Statements Naming Petitioners

The court carefully analyzed the charge-sheet and noted that while overall recoveries were made during investigation, no specific weapons were recovered directly from the individual possession of these petitioners. Furthermore, no specific eyewitness statements directly implicating these three petitioners were recorded at the scene.

3. Parity and Custody Period

The court highlighted that the investigation was fully concluded, the charge-sheet had been filed, and co-accused individuals had already been granted bail by the court in Crl.Misc. Nos. 1826/2024 and 1884/2024. Additionally, the medical records produced showed that Abishek (Accused No. 2) was undergoing medical treatment.

4. Rule of Bail

Reaffirming the foundational principle that “bail is the rule, jail is the exception,” the court held that since the petitioners are local residents of Bengaluru and the charge-sheet is filed, their continued detention was no longer warranted. The concerns of the prosecution could be adequately addressed by imposing strict conditions.

It remains a settled principle of criminal jurisprudence that an order deciding a bail application at the pre-trial stage is purely an evaluation of prima facie materials and does not constitute a final opinion on the guilt or innocence of the accused, which remains subject to trial.

Final Bail Order and Imposed Conditions

Answering Point No. 1 in the affirmative, LXVIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge Sri Sabappa allowed the petition filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. and ordered the release of Abishek alias Dharma, Ganesh U.R. alias Gani, and Kishor S. alias Kachori on regular bail in Crime No. 352/2023 (C.C. No. 2441/2024) upon executing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) each with two sureties for the like sum, subject to the following conditions:

1. The petitioners shall appear before the trial court within 30 days from the date of this order.
2. The petitioners shall not tamper with prosecution witnesses either directly or indirectly in any manner.
3. They shall regularly appear before the concerned court as and when required.
4. They shall not abscond from their ordinary residence and shall furnish address proof to the concerned police.
5. They shall not indulge in any kind of offence.
6. They shall not leave the jurisdiction of the court without prior permission.