In a significant judicial order delivered on April 10, 2024, the LXVIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City (CCH-69), Sri Sabappa, B.Com., LL.B. (Spl.), allowed the bail application filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) in Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 3098/2024. The court enlarged the petitioner, Alex (arrayed as Accused No. 1 / Accused No. 3), on regular bail in connection with Crime No. 194/2023 registered by the Chamarajpet Police Station for an offence punishable under Section 397 (robbery, or dacoity, with attempt to cause death or grievous hurt) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

Factual Background and Prosecution Allegations

The criminal law was set into motion based on a complaint lodged by one Mahadeva at the Chamarajpet Police Station. According to the prosecution case, on September 21, 2023, at approximately 3:10 AM, the complainant was coming towards the market after loading flowers. When he reached near Old Toll Gate, four unknown persons arriving in a passenger auto-rickshaw blocked his way.

Two individuals exited the auto-rickshaw carrying long knives (“longs”). One suspect restrained the complainant while the other caught hold of his companion, Mariswamy. The assailants physically assaulted the complainant and forcibly snatched Rs. 1,000/- from his pocket, along with Rs. 700/- from Mariswamy, before fleeing the scene.

Following investigation, the Chamarajpet Police arrested the petitioner, Alex, on January 21, 2024—four months after the alleged incident—and remanded him to judicial custody after completing police interrogation.

The personal details of the petitioner as recorded in court documents are:

• Alex: Aged 29 years, son of Anthony, residing at New Ashok Tent Society Lane, Ashoknagar, Arabic College Post, Bengaluru – 560 045.

Arguments Advanced by the Defence

Appearing on behalf of the petitioner, learned advocate Sri Rakesh Raj submitted several key grounds seeking regular bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C.:

• Claim of Innocence and Delay in Arrest: The petitioner asserted that he was innocent, had no involvement in the alleged robbery, and was falsely implicated four months after the commission of the offence.
• Absence of Specific Descriptions and Recovery: The defence highlighted that neither the complaint nor the initial FIR contained any specific physical description of the petitioner, and no stolen property or weapons were recovered from his direct possession.
• Completion of Interrogation: Counsel submitted that the petitioner had been in judicial custody since January 21, 2024, was subjected to police custody and interrogation, and was no longer required for further investigation.
• Test Identification Parade: The Test Identification Parade (TIP) had already been conducted by the Tahsildar.
• Parity with Co-Accused: Counsel produced a copy of a prior bail order passed by the same court in Crl. Misc. No. 2447/2024, wherein a co-accused in the same crime had already been enlarged on regular bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C.
• Local Roots: It was urged that the petitioner is a permanent resident of Bengaluru City, the sole earning member of his family, willing to abide by all court conditions, and ready to furnish reliable sureties.

Prosecution Objections

The Public Prosecutor filed detailed objections accompanied by the report of the Police Inspector, Chamarajpet Police Station, opposing the bail application on the following grounds:

• Habitual Offender and Pending Investigation: The prosecution contended that the petitioner is a habitual offender and that Accused No. 2 remained absconding and was yet to be traced by the investigating agency.
• Pending TIP Report: The investigating officer had not yet received the official report from the Tahsildar regarding the Test Identification Parade.
• Flight Risk and Witness Interference: The prosecution argued that the petitioner lacked a permanent abode, and if enlarged on bail, he might abscond, commit similar offences, hinder the arrest of Accused No. 2, and tamper with prosecution witnesses or evidence.

Judicial Findings and Legal Reasoning

The Sessions Court examined the case records, police report, and rival contentions to evaluate Point No. 1: whether the petitioner made out sufficient grounds for grant of regular bail under Section 397 IPC.

1. Parity and Nature of Offence

Judge Sabappa noted that while Section 397 IPC is a severe offence triable by the Sessions Court, it is not punishable with death or life imprisonment. Crucially, the court observed that co-accused in Crime No. 194/2023 had already been granted regular bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. in Crl. Misc. No. 2447/2024. Holding that the present petitioner stood on an identical footing regarding the nature of allegations, the court affirmed that the principle of parity applied in his favor.

2. Completion of Police Interrogation and Custodial Necessity

The court emphasized the established principle of criminal jurisprudence that “bail is the rule, jail is the exception.” The police had already secured custody of the petitioner, interrogated him, and remanded him back to judicial custody. Consequently, his continued pre-trial detention was no longer warranted for investigation purposes.

3. Hardship to Family and Safeguarding Prosecution Interests

The court recognized that prolonged judicial custody would inflict undue financial hardship and humiliation on the petitioner’s dependent family members. The court concluded that prosecution concerns regarding flight risk or trial delay could be effectively safeguarded by imposing stringent conditions.

Final Order and Conditions Imposed

Answering Point No. 1 in the affirmative, LXVIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge Sri Sabappa allowed the Criminal Miscellaneous Petition filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. and passed the following order:

The bail petition filed by the petitioner under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. is hereby allowed. The petitioner, Alex, is ordered to be released on regular bail in connection with Crime No. 194/2023 of Chamarajpet Police Station on executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with one surety for the like sum, subject to the following conditions:

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

The court added that if any of the above conditions are violated, the Investigating Officer remains at liberty to move an application for cancellation of bail. The petitioner was ordered to be released on bail provided his custody is not required in any other case.