The XXVII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge (CCH 9) holding concurrent charge of the LXIX Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City (CCH 70), Sri Hareesha A., B.A., LL.B., allowed the regular bail petition filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 2950/2024 on April 4, 2024. The court granted regular bail to Sri Mujamilpasha @ Muju (Accused No. 1) in connection with Crime No. 64/2024 registered by the Amruthahalli Police Station, Bengaluru.

The petitioner faced prosecution for alleged offences punishable under Sections 364(A) (kidnapping for ransom, etc.), 324 (voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means), and 506(b) (punishment for criminal intimidation) read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), currently pending on the file of the 7th Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (A.C.M.M.), Bengaluru.

Factual Matrix of the Case and Prosecution Allegations

The criminal proceedings originated from a complaint lodged by one Masoom, a resident of Dasarahalli, Bengaluru, on March 6, 2024.

• Alleged Abduction: According to the informant, on March 6, 2024, at approximately 12:30 AM, three unknown individuals arrived at his residence, falsely identifying themselves as crime police officers from the Amruthahalli Police Station. They allegedly took him under the guise of an investigation into an undisclosed criminal matter.
• Ransom Demands and Assault: The complainant stated that he was taken to an undisclosed location where the abductors demanded a ransom of ₹5 Lakhs for his release, while also threatening him with a contract killing worth ₹2 Lakhs. The accused allegedly assaulted him with a beer bottle and a sword, causing injuries to his head, right shoulder, and abdomen.
• Police Intervention and Rescue: During the incident, a police patrolling vehicle approached the location, prompting the victim to shout for assistance. The patrolling officers intervened, rescuing the complainant and apprehending the accused individuals at the spot.

Details of the Petitioner

• Name: Sri Mujamilpasha @ Muju (Petitioner / Accused No. 1)
• Father’s Name: Amzadpasha
• Residential Address: No. 185, III Cross, Kogilu Layout, Yelahanka, Bengaluru
• Legal Representation: Sri S.R. Raghavendra, Advocate

Submissions Advanced by the Parties

On Behalf of the Petitioner

1. False Implication and Loan Dispute: The defense contended that the criminal case was a fabricated counter-measure arising from disputes concerning the repayment of a loan extended to the complainant.
2. Contradictions in FIR and Arrest: Counsel pointed out a glaring procedural contradiction: while the complaint asserted that the accused were apprehended directly at the scene by the patrolling police, the initial FIR was inexplicably registered against “three unknown persons.”
3. Inconsistency in Seizure Material: The defense highlighted that although the prosecution alleged the victim was assaulted with a beer bottle and a sword resulting in severe head trauma, the police seized an empty, unbroken beer bottle, which contradicted claims of a violent blow causing injury.
4. Principle of Parity: Counsel emphasized that co-accused individuals (Accused Nos. 2 and 3) had already been enlarged on regular bail by the same sessions court, and the petitioner was entitled to equal treatment under the doctrine of parity.

On Behalf of the Respondent (State)

1. Gravity of Charges: The Public Prosecutor opposed the bail plea, contending that there existed prima facie materials showing the accused impersonated police officers, abducted a citizen, demanded ransom, and used lethal weapons.
2. Weapon Recovery: The state submitted that a sword, a beer bottle, and a Swift car used in the kidnapping had been seized at the instance of the accused, necessitating continued judicial custody.

Judicial Findings and Legal Reasoning

Judge Hareesha A. evaluated the records, remand papers, seizure details, and rival submissions before answering the point for consideration in the affirmative:

1. Discrepancies in Prosecution Case: The court noted the puzzling inconsistency where the complaint claimed direct apprehension of the accused at the scene by police, yet the FIR was registered against unknown persons.
2. Contradictory Seizure Evidence: The court observed the inherent contradiction in the police seizing an intact, unbroken beer bottle despite allegations that it was used to inflict severe head injuries on the victim, coupled with the absence of medical records or injury reports substantiating the specific assaults alleged.
3. Application of Parity: Acknowledging that co-accused (Accused Nos. 2 and 3) had already secured regular bail, the court held that the petitioner was entitled to relief on grounds of parity.
4. Unwarranted Pre-Trial Custody: Concluding that continued detention was unnecessary given the evidentiary gaps and stage of proceedings, the court ruled that stringent conditions could fully address concerns regarding witness tampering or flight risk.

Final Court Order and Imposed Conditions

Answering Point No. 1 in the affirmative, the Sessions Court allowed the regular bail petition filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C.

The court ordered that Sri Mujamilpasha @ Muju (Accused No. 1) be released on regular bail in connection with Crime No. 64/2024 of Amruthahalli Police Station, pending before the 7th ACMM Court, upon executing a personal bond for ₹1,00,000/- with one surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Magistrate, subject to the following conditions:

1. No Witness Tampering: The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly threaten or tamper with prosecution witnesses.
2. Non-Recidivism: The petitioner shall not commit similar offences in the future.
3. Territorial Limits: The petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the court without prior permission.
4. Residential Proof: The petitioner shall furnish authentic documents establishing his residential proof.
5. Investigative & Court Attendance: The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer and the trial court regularly as and when summoned.

Note: In the event of any breach of these conditions, the prosecution is at liberty to move the court for cancellation of bail.