In a decision delivered on April 27, 2024, the LXIV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge (CCH-65), Bengaluru, presided over by Sri A. Earanna, allowed the anticipatory bail application in Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 2888/2024. The judicial order extended pre-arrest bail protection to 24-year-old Ramesha (Accused No. 1) in connection with C.C. No. 26325/2019, originating from Crime No. 741/2017 registered by the Rajagopalanagar Police Station, Bengaluru. The petitioner faced apprehension of arrest under Non-Bailable Warrants (NBW) issued in ongoing proceedings for alleged offences punishable under Sections 399 (making preparation to commit dacoity) and 402 (assembling for purpose of committing dacoity) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), pending on the file of the VII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (A.C.M.M.), Bengaluru.

Factual Background and Prosecution Allegations

The criminal proceedings originated from a police raid conducted on July 17, 2017, at approximately 5:00 PM. According to the complaint filed by Sri V.J. Mithun Shilpi, Police Inspector at Rajagopalanagar Police Station:

• Illegal Assembly: The investigating officer received credible intelligence indicating that a group of individuals had unlawfully assembled near the boundary wall of Garden City Fashion Garments, Brindavan Road, within the limits of Rajagopalanagar Police Station.
• Alleged Intent to Rob: The prosecution alleged that the assembled individuals were equipped with deadly weapons and were actively planning to commit robbery targeting the general public and passersby traveling along the road.
• Charge Sheet and Committal: Based on the raid, the police registered FIR Crime No. 741/2017, completed the investigation, and filed a formal charge sheet, which was registered as C.C. No. 26325/2019 and subsequently committed to the Sessions Court.

The details of the petitioner as per court records are:

• Ramesha (Petitioner / Accused No. 1): Aged about 24 years, son of Aniyappa, residing at 3rd Cross, Friends Circle, Rajagopalanagar, Bengaluru.

Arguments Advanced on Behalf of the Petitioner

Appearing on behalf of the applicant, learned advocate Sri Umesh T.K. presented several grounds seeking pre-arrest protection under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.):

• Innocence and False Implication: The petitioner maintained that he was entirely innocent of the alleged offences, was not involved in any unlawful assembly, and had been falsely implicated in the proceedings.
• Completion of Investigation: The defense pointed out that the police investigation was fully complete and the charge sheet had already been submitted to the court. Consequently, custodial interrogation of the petitioner was no longer required.
• Ground for Non-Appearance: The defense submitted that Non-Bailable Warrants (NBW) were issued due to the petitioner’s inadvertent non-appearance, which he learned about recently through local police visits, prompting the immediate application for pre-arrest protection.
• Ground of Parity: Counsel highlighted that co-accused Accused No. 8 had already been enlarged on bail by the competent court. Grounded on the principle of parity, the petitioner was entitled to similar pre-arrest relief.
• Family Support and Local Roots: The petitioner is a 24-year-old sole male earning member supporting age-old parents, with deep roots in Bengaluru as a permanent resident of Rajagopalanagar, and no prior criminal antecedents.

Prosecution Objections and State Arguments

The Public Prosecutor strongly opposed the grant of anticipatory bail by submitting a formal statement of objections:

• Gravity of Allegations: The prosecution emphasized that the charges under Sections 399 and 402 IPC involve serious allegations of planning violent armed dacoity against the general public.
• Evasion of Court Process: The state argued that the petitioner failed to appear during post-charge sheet proceedings, necessitating the issuance of Non-Bailable Warrants, and expressed concern that granting pre-arrest protection might lead to further trial delays or non-attendance.

Judicial Findings and Legal Precedents Cited

Upon evaluating the FIR, charge sheet records, order sheet entries, and rival submissions, Judge A. Earanna evaluated the petitioner’s entitlement to pre-arrest relief under Section 438 Cr.P.C.

1. Non-Capital Penalties and Lack of Custodial Need

The court observed that the alleged offences under Sections 399 and 402 IPC do not carry mandatory sentences of death or life imprisonment. Furthermore, because the police investigation had concluded and the final charge sheet was already before the court, custodial interrogation was unnecessary.

2. Application of Constitutional Bench Principles

The court cited fundamental judicial doctrines governing pre-trial liberty:

• State of Rajasthan v. Balchand [(1977) AIR SC 2447]: Reaffirmed the foundational legal principle that “Bail is the rule and jail is an exception” under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
• Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI [(2022) 10 SCC 51]: Highlighted guidelines emphasizing the balance between individual liberty, avoiding unjustifiable detention, and securing the accused’s presence through appropriate reporting conditions rather than pre-trial incarceration.

3. Parity and Community Ties

Observing that co-accused Accused No. 8 had already been granted bail and that the petitioner is a permanent resident of Bengaluru with family dependencies and no prior criminal records, the court held that the prosecution’s concerns regarding trial attendance could be adequately addressed through strict conditions.

Final Pre-Arrest Bail Order and Imposed Conditions

Answering the point for consideration in the affirmative, the LXIV Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge allowed the petition filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. and passed the following order:

In the event of his arrest in connection with C.C. No. 26325/2019 (arising out of Crime No. 741/2017 of Rajagopalanagar Police Station), Ramesha (Accused No. 1) shall be released on bail upon executing a personal bond for ₹1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) with two sureties for the likesum, subject to the following conditions:

• The petitioner shall furnish official residential address proof for himself and his sureties, alongside copies of their identity documents, at the time of executing bonds.
• The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat, or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade them from disclosing facts to the Investigating Officer or to the court.
• The petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of India without prior permission of the trial court.
• The petitioner shall not involve himself in any criminal activities.
• In the event of any change in residential address, the petitioner and his sureties shall intimate the same to the court immediately without fail.

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