The LXI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City (CCH-62), presided over by Smt. Nisharani A.C., B.A., LL.B., dismissed the regular bail application filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) in Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 2917/2024 on April 8, 2024. The judicial order rejected the regular bail plea of Shivakumar @ Sri Manjunath (Accused in Judicial Custody) in connection with C.C. No. 2601/2024 (arising out of Crime No. 488/2023 of the Yelahanka Police Station, Bengaluru City), which involves allegations for offences punishable under Sections 323 (voluntarily causing hurt), 328 (causing hurt by means of poison, etc., with intent to commit an offence), and 351 / 341 (wrongful restraint / assault) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
Factual Matrix of the Case and Prosecution Allegations
The criminal proceedings originated from a complaint lodged regarding an incident on November 5, 2023, at approximately 10:00 PM:
- The Incident: According to the prosecution, the complainant’s wife, Jnaneshwari, was returning home after closing her medical store near the Judicial Layout Park Road in Byatarayanapura, Bengaluru.
- Assault and Administration of Stupefying Substance: The accused, acting on an old grudge, intercepted the victim, held a knife to her neck with the intent to cause grave harm, assaulted her on the lips and mouth, and forcefully compelled her to swallow sleeping tablets, causing her to fall unconscious.
- Charge Sheet Filing: Following a thorough investigation, the Yelahanka police filed a final charge sheet against the petitioner, and the case was registered as C.C. No. 2601/2024.
Details of the Petitioner
- Name: Shivakumar @ Sri Manjunath
- Father’s Name: Shiva Reddy
- Age: 27 years
- Residential Address: C/o Gadigeyavara House, Valmiki Circle, Gangavathi Town, Koppal District, Karnataka
- Legal Representation: Sri Chandrashekar C. Chanaspur, Advocate
Submissions Advanced by the Parties
On Behalf of the Petitioner
- Innocence and False Implication: The petitioner maintained that he was entirely innocent, had been falsely implicated in the crime, and was not a habitual offender.
- Roots in Society: The defense emphasized that the accused is a permanent resident residing with his parents, serves as the sole earning member of his family, and poses no flight risk.
- Completion of Investigation: Counsel argued that because the investigating agency had already completed its investigation and filed the charge sheet, further pre-trial detention in judicial custody was unwarranted, and the petitioner was ready to abide by any stringent bail conditions.
On Behalf of the Respondent (State)
- Primacy of Heinous Offenses: The Public Prosecutor strongly opposed the application, submitting that the charge sheet materials established a clear prima facie case regarding the commission of a heinous offense under Section 328 IPC (administering a stupefying drug/poison to cause hurt).
- Risk of Tampering and Flight: The state argued that granting bail at this stage would create a serious risk of the accused absconding, threatening the complainant, and tampering with key prosecution witnesses.
Judicial Findings and Detailed Legal Reasoning
Judge Nisharani A.C. evaluated the petition, charge sheet records, objections, and previous judicial orders:
- Previous Bail Rejections and Absence of Fresh Grounds: The court observed that the petitioner’s earlier two regular bail applications under Section 439 Cr.P.C. (Crl. Misc. No. 11041/2023 dismissed on November 23, 2023, and Crl. Misc. No. 12321/2023 dismissed on January 6, 2024) had already been rejected. The court noted that the petitioner failed to make out any fresh, cogent grounds for reconsideration, as the mere filing of a charge sheet does not mitigate the gravity of the accusations.
- Impact of Charge Sheet Filing: Relying on the Supreme Court precedent in Virupaksha Gowda v. State of Karnataka (AIR 2017 SC 1685), the court reiterated that the filing of a charge sheet substantiates a prima facie case against the accused, demonstrating that the investigating agency found sufficient incriminating material after due inquiry.
- Gravity of Section 328 IPC: Citing established legal principles regarding heinous crimes (referencing ILR 2016 KAR 1516 and 2010 SCC 496), the court emphasized that while considering bail for severe offenses involving stupefying substances and assault, the court must weigh the prima facie evidence, severity of potential punishment, and broader societal interest. Given the specific allegations of forcing sleeping tablets on the victim under threat of a knife, pre-trial release was deemed unjustified.
Final Court Order and Disposition
Answering Point No. 1 in the negative, the Sessions Court passed the following order:
- The regular bail petition filed by the petitioner under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. in Crl. Misc. No. 2917/2024 is hereby REJECTED.