In a notable judicial order passed on April 1, 2024, the LXI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City (CCH-62), Smt. Nisharani A.C., B.A., LL.B., allowed the regular bail application filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) in Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 2914/2024. The court enlarged Ganesh (Split-up Accused No. 7) on regular bail in relation to Crime No. 108/2015 registered by the C.K. Achukattu Police Station (currently pending in C.C. No. 15311/2015 & split-up C.C. No. 28839/2016). The petitioner was facing prosecution for offences punishable under Sections 399 (making preparation to commit dacoity) and 402 (assembling for purpose of committing dacoity) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

Case Background and Allegations

The criminal law was set into motion following an incident on March 11, 2015, at approximately 8:30 PM. According to the prosecution case, the petitioner (split-up Accused No. 7) along with other accused persons formed an unlawful assembly in a dark location near Banashankari 3rd Stage, Ittamadu, Anjenyanagara, Banashankari Steel, Bengaluru. The group was allegedly armed with deadly weapons such as iron knives and wooden clubs, preparing to commit dacoity against members of the general public passing through the area.

Following the investigation, the C.K. Achukattu Police filed a charge-sheet. However, the case against the petitioner was subsequently split up into C.C. No. 28839/2016.

The details of the petitioner as per court records are:

• Ganesh: Aged about 30 years, son of L. Krishnappa, residing at No. 54, 1st Cross, Katriguppe Main Road, Siddartha Layout, BSK 3rd Stage, Bengaluru – 560 085.

Procedural History and Arguments on Behalf of the Petitioner

Appearing on behalf of the applicant, learned advocate Sri Venkataprakash G.K. presented several grounds seeking regular bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C.:

• Innocence and False Implication: The petitioner maintained that he was entirely innocent of the alleged offences, had no direct or indirect role in the crime, and belonged to a respectable family with no prior bad antecedents.
• Parity with Co-Accused: It was submitted that co-accused persons in the main case had already been enlarged on bail.
• Voluntary Surrender Following High Court Directions: Counsel disclosed that an earlier bail application (Crl. Misc. No. 930/2024) before the Sessions Court had been rejected. Subsequently, the petitioner preferred an anticipatory bail petition (Crl. P. No. 1747/2024) before the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka. After the High Court expressed disinclination to grant pre-arrest relief, the petitioner withdrew the petition and voluntarily surrendered before the trial court (7th ACMM Court) on March 20, 2024, whereupon he was remanded to judicial custody.
• Non-Capital Offences and Local Roots: The offences under Sections 399 and 402 IPC are not punishable with death or life imprisonment. The petitioner is a permanent resident of Bengaluru with fixed abodes.
• Undertaking: The petitioner undertook to abide by all conditions imposed by the court and furnish solvent sureties.

Objections Raised by the Prosecution

The Public Prosecutor strongly opposed the bail petition, filing a statement of objections along with the Investigating Officer’s report:

• Proclaimed Offender Status: The prosecution emphasized that the case pertained to a 2015 FIR where the petitioner evaded trial for several years, leading to split-up proceedings and proclamation.
• Prima Facie Material: Case records and charge-sheet materials established a prima facie case regarding the petitioner’s involvement in an armed dacoity assembly.
• Apprehension of Flight and Interference: The prosecution expressed serious concern that if released on bail, the petitioner—having previously absconded—would again flee from justice, fail to attend trial, or tamper with prosecution witnesses.

Judicial Analysis and Detailed Legal Reasoning

The Sessions Court evaluated the charge-sheet materials, voluntary surrender records, and rival submissions to answer Point No. 1: whether the petitioner had made out sufficient grounds for regular bail.

1. Voluntary Surrender and Custodial Status

Judge Nisharani A.C. highlighted that although the petitioner was initially a split-up accused, he voluntarily surrendered before the trial court on March 20, 2024, following the withdrawal of his petition before the High Court of Karnataka. His voluntary surrender demonstrated submission to judicial process.

2. Nature of Penalties and Full-Fledged Trial

The court noted that the offences alleged under Sections 399 and 402 IPC do not carry mandatory penalties of death or life imprisonment. The court observed that the true extent of the petitioner’s involvement must be determined through a full-fledged trial.

3. Verification of Residential Roots and Prosecution Safeguards

Addressing the prosecution’s concern regarding flight risk, the court examined the cause title, charge-sheet details, and identity documents. Finding that the petitioner is a permanent resident of Bengaluru, the court held that his presence could be secured for trial by imposing stringent conditions.

It remains a settled principle of criminal jurisprudence that an order deciding a 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 Order and Imposed Conditions

Answering Point No. 1 in the affirmative, C/C LXI Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge Smt. Nisharani A.C. allowed the 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, subject to the following conditions:

1. The petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in Crime No. 108/2015 of the respondent police station on executing a personal bond for Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) with one surety for the likesum.
2. The petitioner shall not hold any threat to the complainant and shall not tamper with any of the prosecution witnesses directly or indirectly.
3. The petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the trial court without its prior permission.
4. The petitioner shall furnish his residential address proof and that of his surety.
5. If the petitioner fails to obey any of the above said conditions, then this bail order automatically stands cancelled.