Bengaluru Court Grants Bail to Pawan Kumar, Vijay, and Satish Kumar in Bellanduru Dacoity Case

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., allowed the regular bail application filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) in Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 2910/2024 on April 3, 2024. The judicial order granted regular bail to Pawan Kumar (Accused No. 1), Vijay @ Ullala (Accused No. 3), and Satish Kumar @ Sade (Accused No. 5) in connection with Crime No. 142/2024 registered by the Bellanduru Police Station, Bengaluru. The petitioners faced prosecution for alleged offences punishable under Sections 395 (dacoity) and 397 (robbery, or dacoity, with attempt to cause death or grievous hurt) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), pending on the file of the 41st Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (A.C.M.M.), Bengaluru.

Factual Background and Prosecution Allegations

The criminal proceedings originated from a complaint lodged by Nepal Ghosh regarding an armed street robbery that occurred on March 3, 2024, at approximately 5:10 PM near the Sai Baba Temple in Kalanayakanahalli, Bengaluru.

According to the FIR, the informant was riding a bicycle when a group of individuals riding a scooter surrounded him and demanded his valuable belongings. When the informant refused to hand over his valuables, the assailants assaulted him with a knife on his back and forcibly robbed his mobile phone. The assailants also attacked the informant’s cousin with a knife on the back of his head, robbed his mobile phone and ATM card, and fled the scene on their scooter.

Following the incident, Bellanduru Police registered Crime No. 142/2024 against unknown persons under Sections 395 and 397 IPC. During the course of the investigation, police arrested Pawan Kumar, Vijay, and Satish Kumar on March 17, 2024, and produced them before the jurisdictional Magistrate, who remanded them to judicial custody. They were subsequently arraigned as Accused Nos. 1, 3, and 5 in the police remand applications.

The details of the petitioners as per court records are:

Pawan Kumar (Petitioner No. 1 / Accused No. 1): Aged about 19 years, son of Nagaraj, residing at 16th Cross, Naganathapura, Shiva Reddy Layout, Parappana Agrahara, Bengaluru.
Vijay @ Ullala (Petitioner No. 2 / Accused No. 3): Aged about 24 years, son of Ravi, residing at Nirmala’s Rented House, 2nd Main, Bengaluru School Road, Naganathapura, Bengaluru.
Satish Kumar @ Sade (Petitioner No. 3 / Accused No. 5): Aged about 19 years, son of Kumar, residing at Shanthamma Building, 10th Cross, Shiva Reddy Layout, Naganathapura, Bengaluru.

Arguments Advanced on Behalf of the Petitioners

Appearing on behalf of the applicants, learned advocate Sri Noorpasha presented several grounds seeking regular bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C.:

Absence of Initial Identification: Counsel highlighted that the petitioners’ names were not mentioned in the initial FIR or complaint lodged by Nepal Ghosh, indicating that their subsequent inclusion was based on circumstantial suspicion.
Completion of Substantial Investigation: The defense pointed out that the investigating agency had already recorded statements, recovered the vehicles and mobile phones allegedly involved, and conducted spot mahazars. Consequently, further custodial detention was unnecessary.
Young Age and Local Roots: Petitioners No. 1 and 3 are 19-year-old youths, and all applicants are permanent residents of Bengaluru with family dependencies and no prior criminal records.
Undertaking: The applicants assured the court of their willingness to cooperate fully with the ongoing investigation, abide by all court conditions, and offer solvent sureties.

Prosecution Objections and State Arguments

The Public Prosecutor strongly opposed the grant of regular bail, submitting a formal statement of objections supported by the Investigating Officer’s report:

Gravity of Allegations: The prosecution emphasized that the accused group engaged in highway robbery using dangerous weapons (knives) in broad daylight, inflicting physical injuries on two victims.
Active Investigation: The case was still under investigation, and releasing the accused at this stage created risks of abscondance, destruction of evidence, and witness intimidation.
Risk of Recidivism: The state expressed concern that if enlarged on bail, the petitioners might commit similar violent offences in the future.

Judicial Findings and Detailed Legal Reasoning

The Sessions Court evaluated the complaint, FIR records, seizure mahazars, and rival submissions to determine whether the petitioners made out sufficient grounds for regular bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C.

1. Status of Investigation and Custodial Need

Judge B.G. Pramoda observed that substantial investigation had already been completed by the investigating agency. The court noted that voluntary statements had been recorded, and the alleged vehicles and mobile phones had already been seized under mahazars. Consequently, custodial interrogation was no longer required.

2. Adjudication Through Full-Fledged Trial

The court emphasized that whether the petitioners actually participated in the assault, as well as the evidentiary link regarding the seized articles, remained matters to be adjudicated during a full-fledged trial.

3. Application of Constitutional Principles

The court cited the Supreme Court benchmark ruling in State of Rajasthan v. Balchand (AIR 1977 SC 2447), reaffirming the principle that “bail is the rule and jail is an exception” under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The court held that since the alleged offences do not carry mandatory death or life imprisonment penalties, pre-trial incarceration should not be used as punishment.

Final Court Order and Conditions Imposed

Answering the point for consideration in the affirmative, the LII Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge Sri B.G. Pramoda allowed the petition filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. and passed the following order:

The petitioners (Accused Nos. 1, 3, and 5) are enlarged on bail in Crime No. 142/2024 of Bellanduru Police Station, pending on the file of the 41st ACMM Court, Bengaluru, upon executing a personal bond for ₹50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) each with one surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate, subject to the following conditions:

The petitioners shall appear before the Investigating Officer once every 15 days on Sundays for a period of two months or until completion of the investigation, whichever is earlier, and co-operate with the investigation.
The petitioners shall appear before the trial court regularly on all hearing dates.
The petitioners shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat, or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case or tamper with the evidence.
The petitioners shall not commit similar offences or any other offences in the future.
The petitioners shall furnish their correct address proof before the trial court.
The petitioners shall not leave India without previous permission of the court.

Note: Violation of any of the aforementioned conditions shall entitle the prosecution to seek cancellation of bail.