The Court of the LII Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-53), presided over by Sri B.G. Pramoda, B.A.L., LL.B., delivered a significant judicial order on April 3, 2024, allowing a regular bail application filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.). The ruling in Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 3029/2024 extended regular bail protection to Santhosh Kumar V. @ Salaga, who was arrayed as Accused No. 4 and held in judicial custody in connection with Crime No. 142/2024 registered by the Bellanduru Police Station, Bengaluru. The petitioner faced serious prosecution for alleged offences punishable under Section 395 (punishment for dacoity) and Section 397 (robbery, or dacoity, with attempt to cause death or grievous hurt) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), pending adjudication on the file of the 41st Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (A.C.M.M.), Bengaluru.
The criminal proceedings originated from a detailed police complaint lodged by one Nepal Ghosh regarding an armed street robbery that took place on March 3, 2024, at approximately 5:10 PM near the Sai Baba Temple in Kalanayakanahalli, Bengaluru. According to the prosecution case set out in the FIR, the informant was riding a bicycle when he was suddenly surrounded by a group of individuals riding a scooter who demanded his valuables. When the informant refused to comply with their unlawful demands, the assailants allegedly assaulted him with a knife on his back and forcibly robbed his mobile phone. Furthermore, the armed group reportedly attacked the informant’s cousin with a knife on the back of the head, robbing him of his mobile phone and ATM card before fleeing the scene on their scooter. Following the incident, Bellanduru Police registered Crime No. 142/2024 against unknown persons. During the course of the subsequent investigation, the police arrested Santhosh Kumar V. @ Salaga on March 17, 2024, and produced him before the jurisdictional Magistrate, who remanded him to judicial custody.
Seeking regular bail, the 19-year-old petitioner approached the Sessions Court through his legal counsel, contending that he was entirely innocent, had been falsely implicated in the crime, and possessed a valid and tenable defense. The defense emphasized that the petitioner’s name did not figure in the initial complaint or FIR, that substantial investigative steps including the recording of voluntary statements, spot mahazars, and recovery of alleged vehicles and mobile phones had already been completed, and that further custodial detention was entirely unnecessary. It was further submitted that the petitioner is a permanent resident of Bengaluru, hails from a respectable family, has no prior criminal antecedents, and serves as the sole breadwinner supporting his aged parents and dependents. The petitioner undertook to cooperate fully with the ongoing investigation, abide by all stringent conditions imposed by the court, and furnish solvent sureties for his due appearance.
The application was strongly contested by the learned Public Prosecutor, who filed formal written objections along with the Investigating Officer’s report. The state urged the court to reject the bail petition on the ground that the offences alleged—involving armed dacoity and knife attacks on victims on public streets—were grave in nature and harmful to societal security. The prosecution contended that releasing the accused while the investigation was still active could lead to him absconding, tampering with prosecution witnesses, destroying material evidence, or committing similar offences in the future.
Upon evaluating the rival submissions, reviewing the case records, FIR, remand applications, and seizure documents, Judge B.G. Pramoda focused on the core points for consideration. The court observed that substantial investigation had already been carried out by the police, with the seizure of alleged vehicles and robbed mobile phones through mahazars, rendering the continued custodial interrogation of the young petitioner redundant. The court underscored that whether the petitioner actively participated in the alleged assault and whether the seized articles could be conclusively linked to him remain matters for evidentiary determination during a full-fledged trial. Citing the foundational constitutional doctrine established by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Rajasthan v. Balchand (AIR 1977 SC 2447), which reaffirms that bail is the rule and jail is an exception in order to safeguard personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, the court noted that pre-trial incarceration should not be utilized as a punitive measure, particularly when offences do not carry mandatory capital punishment or life imprisonment.
Consequently, the Sessions Court answered the point for consideration in the affirmative and allowed the petition filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. The court directed that Santhosh Kumar V. @ Salaga be enlarged on regular bail in connection with Bellanduru Police Station Crime No. 142/2024, subject to executing a personal bond for ₹50,000/- with one surety for the like sum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Magistrate. The release was made subject to several strict conditions, including reporting to the Investigating Officer once every 15 days on Sundays for two months or until completion of investigation, appearing regularly before the trial court, refraining from tampering with prosecution witnesses or evidence, desisting from criminal activity, furnishing verified residential address proof, and obtaining prior permission before leaving the country.