The Court of the LVI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-57), presided over by Sri T. Govindaiah, B.Com., LL.B., dismissed the anticipatory bail application filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) in Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 2802/2024 on March 25, 2024. The judicial order denied pre-arrest bail protection to 35-year-old Martin in connection with Crime No. 92/2024 registered by the Puttenahalli Police Station, Bengaluru. The petitioner faced prosecution for alleged offences punishable under Sections 307 (attempt to murder), 504 (intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace), 506 (criminal intimidation), and 324 (voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means) read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), pending on the file of the XXX Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (A.C.M.M.), Bengaluru.

Factual Background and Prosecution Allegations

The criminal proceedings originated from a violent altercation that occurred on March 15, 2024, at approximately 3:00 PM. According to the prosecution records, the complainant visited a restaurant named Nati Stall, situated in J.P. Nagar, Bengaluru, to inquire regarding a brokerage commission dispute involving an amount of ₹32,000/-.

During the interaction, Accused No. 1 physically assaulted the complainant on his face using his hands. Upon witnessing the assault, the complainant’s sons, Prajwal and Kaushik, arrived at the spot and questioned Accused No. 1 regarding the physical aggression toward their father. Accused No. 1 subsequently telephoned Accused No. 3, alleging that the complainant had brought local rowdy elements to trouble him.

Accused No. 3 arrived at the scene and kicked the complainant. Accused No. 1, alongside his brother, then launched a physical attack on the complainant’s sons utilizing a heavy metal hook typically employed for culinary and meat cooking purposes. The assailants issued life threats to the complainant and his family members. As a direct result of the violent assault, the complainant sustained injuries requiring 16 medical stitches, his son Kaushik received 5 stitches on the back of his head, and his other son, Prajwal, required 2 stitches on his forehead. Following medical treatment, a formal complaint was lodged at the Puttenahalli Police Station.

The details of the petitioner as per court records are:

• Martin (Petitioner): Aged about 35 years, son of Premkumar, residing at No. 425, 10th A Cross, 4th T Block, Bengaluru South, Bengaluru.

Arguments Advanced on Behalf of the Petitioner

Appearing on behalf of the applicant, learned advocate Sri Prasanna Kumar K.P. presented several grounds seeking pre-arrest protection under Section 438 Cr.P.C.:

• Claim of Innocence and Lack of Overt Acts: The petitioner maintained that he was entirely innocent of the alleged offences, was falsely implicated in the FIR, and had not committed any physical assault against either the complainant or his sons.
• Absence of Specific Role: Counsel argued that the complaint lacked specific overt acts directly attributed to Martin during the violent incident at the restaurant.
• Delay in Lodging FIR: The defence highlighted an inordinate delay in filing the formal complaint following the alleged incident.
• Medical Discharge: It was submitted that the injured victims had already received necessary medical treatment and were discharged from the hospital, indicating that their conditions were stable.
• Non-Capital Offences: The defence pointed out that the alleged offences do not carry the death penalty or life imprisonment.
• Local Roots: The petitioner is a permanent resident of Bengaluru South, hailing from a respectable family with deep roots in the community, and expressed willingness to abide by all court-imposed conditions and furnish solvent sureties.

Prosecution Objections and State Arguments

The Public Prosecutor strongly opposed the grant of anticipatory bail, filing a formal statement of objections detailing the gravity of the crime:

• Severity of Offences: The prosecution submitted that the accused group launched a brutal attack using a sharp and heavy metal cooking hook, causing multiple head and facial injuries requiring a total of 23 medical stitches across three victims.
• Statutory Penalty: The offence under Section 307 IPC carries severe statutory penalties extending up to 10 years of imprisonment.
• Active Investigation Phase: The police investigation was still in its preliminary stage, and the formal charge-sheet had not yet been filed.
• Apprehension of Abscondance and Witness Intimidation: The prosecution expressed serious apprehension that because the petitioner remained an absconding accused, granting pre-arrest protection would hamper fair investigation, lead to witness tampering, create flight risks, and allow the accused to evade police interrogation.

Judicial Findings and Detailed Legal Reasoning

The Sessions Court evaluated the complaint, FIR records, medical injury certificates, and rival submissions to determine whether the petitioner made out sufficient grounds for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C.

1. Gravity of Assault and Medical Evidence

Judge T. Govindaiah observed that the prosecution papers established a severe case of physical violence involving dangerous weapons. The court noted that the victims sustained severe head and body injuries, supported by medical records demonstrating that the complainant required 16 stitches, Kaushik required 5 stitches on the back of his head, and Prajwal required 2 stitches on his forehead.

2. Stage of Investigation and Absconding Status

The court emphasized that the police investigation into Crime No. 92/2024 was ongoing and the charge-sheet had not yet been submitted to the jurisdictional magistrate. The court noted that the petitioner was an absconding accused whose custodial availability was necessary for thorough investigative procedures.

3. Discretionary Relief Under Section 438 Cr.P.C.

Holding that Section 307 IPC is a grave offence carrying up to 10 years of imprisonment, the court observed that granting pre-arrest protection to an absconding accused at an active stage of investigation would prejudice the prosecution’s ability to conduct a fair probe, collect evidence, and protect material witnesses from intimidation. Consequently, the court concluded that the case was not fit for exercising discretionary powers under Section 438 Cr.P.C.

It remains a settled principle of criminal jurisprudence that an order deciding an anticipatory 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 Court Order

Answering the point for consideration in the negative, the LVI Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge Sri T. Govindaiah formally dismissed the anticipatory bail petition:

The bail petition filed by the petitioner, Martin, under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. is hereby dismissed.