The Court of the LXVI Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City (CCH-67), presided over by Sri Hemanth Kumar C.R., B.A.L., LL.B. (I/C LXVI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge), delivered a judicial order on April 4, 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. 2945/2024 extended regular bail protection to Sri Suresh Joshi (Accused No. 3) in connection with Crime No. 81/2024 of the Kodigehalli Police Station, Bengaluru, pending before the jurisdictional Magistrate. The petitioner faced prosecution for alleged offences punishable under Section 381 (theft by clerk or servant of property in possession of master), Section 328 (causing hurt by means of poison, etc., with intent to commit an offence), and Section 120B (criminal conspiracy) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

Factual Matrix and Prosecution Allegations

The criminal proceedings originated from a formal complaint lodged by one N. Gopalaiah concerning an incident of theft and suspected drugging at his residence:

• Travel and Suspicion: According to the complaint, on February 27, 2024, the complainant travelled to Cochin after being dropped off at the airport by his driver. On February 28, 2024, the complainant’s daughter-in-law experienced severe difficulty in speaking, prompting the driver to assist her to the bedroom.
• Discovery of Theft and Hospitalization: Later that evening, the driver picked up the complainant from the airport. Upon returning home, the complainant found his daughter-in-law in an incapacitated, intoxicated state. Growing suspicious, he unlocked his room using a master key, rushed her to the hospital, and upon inspection, discovered that his wardrobe drawer had been broken open and two gold rings along with cash were missing.
• Police Investigation: Suspecting that his domestic servants had administered a stupefying substance or drug to his daughter-in-law to facilitate the theft, the complainant lodged a police complaint. The Kodigehalli Police registered Crime No. 81/2024 against unknown persons, subsequently arresting the petitioner (Accused No. 3) and remanding him to judicial custody on March 8, 2024.

Details of the Petitioner

• Name: Sri Suresh Joshi (Petitioner / Accused No. 3)
• Father’s Name: Sri Narendra Joshi
• Age: About 47 years
• Residential Address: Maruthi Excel Home Apartment, Virupakshipura, Kodigehalli, Bengaluru (Native of Lammishivanagar, Palike-1, Mothipura Thana, Kailali District, Nepal).
• Legal Representation: Sri M.N.D., Advocate
• Prosecution Representation: Learned Public Prosecutor, State by Kodigehalli Police Station

Submissions Advanced by the Parties

On Behalf of the Petitioner

1. Innocence and False Implication: The defense maintained that the petitioner was entirely innocent, had no direct or indirect involvement in the alleged offences, and was arrested due to a foul game played by Co-Accused Nos. 1 and 2.
2. Lack of Recovery and Custody: Counsel argued that the petitioner hails from a respectable family with no bad antecedents, that no genuine or actual recovery was effected from his possession, and that police had falsely fabricated recovery claims. Having been in judicial custody since March 8, 2024, and following the completion of police custody interrogations, his continued detention was unwarranted as the offences are not punishable with death or life imprisonment.

On Behalf of the Respondent (State)

1. Grievous Nature of Offences: The learned Public Prosecutor strongly opposed the bail petition by filing formal written objections, emphasizing that the accused persons had brazenly administered a drug to the complainant’s daughter-in-law to facilitate a domestic theft.
2. Flight Risk: The state urged that because the petitioner is a native of Nepal, releasing him on bail would create an extreme risk of abscondence, threatening prosecution witnesses, destroying evidence, and hampering ongoing judicial proceedings.

Judicial Findings and Legal Reasoning

Upon reviewing the case records, remand papers, and rival submissions, Judge Hemanth Kumar C.R. recorded definitive findings on Point No. 1:

1. Nature of Penal Provisions: The court observed that the offences alleged under Sections 381, 328, and 120B IPC, while grievous in nature, are not exclusively punishable with death or imprisonment for life.
2. Completion of Custodial Interrogation: The judge noted that the petitioner was arrested on March 8, 2024, and following police custody, was remanded back to judicial custody on March 22, 2024, indicating that his custodial interrogation for investigative purposes was already complete and he was no longer required for further police custody.
3. Addressing Prosecution Apprehensions: While acknowledging the prosecution’s concerns regarding the petitioner being a native of Nepal and the risk of flight, the court held that these apprehensions could be effectively safeguarded and mitigated by imposing stringent and comprehensive conditions, including furnishing local sureties and address proof.

Final Regular Bail Order and Conditions Imposed

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

The court ordered that Sri Suresh Joshi (Accused No. 3) be enlarged on bail in connection with Crime No. 81/2024 of Kodigehalli Police Station, upon executing a personal bond for ₹1,00,000/- with two sureties for the like sum to the satisfaction of the court, subject to the following strict conditions:

1. Court Attendance: The petitioner shall appear before the court on all dates of hearing.
2. Investigative Cooperation: The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer whenever called upon for the purpose of further investigation.
3. Non-Recidivism: The petitioner shall not involve himself in any criminal activities.
4. No Witness Tampering: The petitioner shall not tamper with evidence and shall not threaten, induce, or allure prosecution witnesses in any manner whatsoever.
5. Travel Restriction: The petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the court without prior permission of the court.
6. Address Proof: The petitioner shall produce valid permanent address proof documents.