The Court of the LXV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City (CCH-66, concurrent charge of CCH-67), presided over by Sri Hemanth Kumar C.R., allowed the anticipatory bail application in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 2815/2024 on April 1, 2024. The judicial order extended pre-arrest bail protection to Ravi Tej @ G. Ravi Teja (Accused No. 1), M. Santhosh (Accused No. 2), Ravi Kumar (Accused No. 3), Charan M. (Accused No. 4), and Manoj P. (Accused No. 5) in connection with Crime No. 93/2024 registered by the Byatarayanapura Police Station, Bengaluru. The petitioners faced apprehension of arrest 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 149 (unlawful assembly) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

Factual Matrix of the Case and Prosecution Allegations

The criminal proceedings originated from a formal complaint lodged by Shashank at the Byatarayanapura Police Station regarding a violent assault that occurred on March 7, 2024. According to the informant, he and Accused No. 1, Ravi Tej, were acquaintances who completed SSLC together. Approximately five years prior, the complainant and Ravi Tej jointly invested ₹20,000/- each to take a Pulsar motorcycle on mortgage.

A financial dispute arose between the two when the complainant discovered that Ravi Tej was collecting interest on the invested capital without informing him. When questioned, a heated altercation ensued, leading to the return of the complainant’s ₹20,000/- alongside verbal threats.

According to the FIR, on March 7, 2024, at approximately 10:15 PM, while the complainant was near Veerabhadra Colony in front of Eashwara Automobiles, an unknown associate struck him on the head with a glass bottle. Accused No. 1, Ravi Tej, allegedly approached holding a dagger and questioned his escape, while four co-accused arrived on a motorcycle, restrained the victim, and launched a physical assault. The complainant was subsequently taken to a hospital for medical treatment. Following receipt of the complaint, the police registered Crime No. 93/2024 under Sections 307, 504, 506, and 149 IPC.

The details of the petitioners as per court records are:

• Ravi Tej @ G. Ravi Teja (Petitioner No. 1 / Accused No. 1): Aged 26 years, son of M. Govindaiah, residing at No. 3225/A, 2nd Cross, Netravathi Road, Near Police Station, Kumaraswamy Layout 2nd Stage, J.P. Nagar, Bengaluru – 560078.
• M. Santhosh (Petitioner No. 2 / Accused No. 2): Aged 22 years, son of Ningaraj, residing at Vadedoddi, H. Kothnuru, Ramanagara – 562117.
• Ravi Kumar (Petitioner No. 3 / Accused No. 3): Aged 19 years, son of Muniyappa, residing at No. 269, 6th Cross, Hrushikesh Nagar, Hosakerehalli, BSK 3rd Stage, Bengaluru – 560085.
• Charan M. (Petitioner No. 4 / Accused No. 4): Major, son of Mahesh, residing at No. 947/A, 5th Main Road, Kalidasa Nagar, Hosakerehalli, Bengaluru – 560085.
• Manoj P. (Petitioner No. 5 / Accused No. 5): Aged 19 years, son of Prakash L., residing at No. 26, 1st Main Road, Near Mookambika Temple, Hosakerehalli, BSK 3rd Stage, Bengaluru – 560085.

Submissions Advanced on Behalf of the Petitioners

Appearing on behalf of the applicants, learned advocate Sri Dilipkumar U.T. submitted that the petitioners were innocent of the alleged offences and had been falsely implicated owing to prior financial rivalries between the complainant and Petitioner No. 1.

The defense highlighted that the complaint narrative established that the victim was in an intoxicated state at the time of the incident, making the origin and nature of any alleged injuries a matter for trial determination. Furthermore, counsel submitted that there were no severe or life-threatening injuries inflicted on vital body parts, and the complainant had already been discharged from the hospital and was physically fit. The defense pointed out an unexplainable delay in lodging the FIR, maintained that the elements of Section 307 IPC were not attracted, and assured the court that the young petitioners were ready to fully cooperate with the police investigation.

Prosecution Objections and State Arguments

The Public Prosecutor strongly opposed the grant of pre-arrest protection by submitting formal objections. The prosecution argued that the accused group formed an unlawful assembly armed with a dagger and glass bottle, committing a targeted assault on the victim.

The state submitted that the offence under Section 307 IPC carries severe statutory penalties and that because the police investigation was still active, granting anticipatory bail to the five accused would create risks of witness intimidation, destruction of evidence, or non-cooperation during trial proceedings.

Judicial Findings and Legal Reasoning

Upon evaluating the FIR, complaint details, and submissions, Judge Hemanth Kumar C.R. examined the petitioners’ entitlement to pre-arrest relief under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.). The court observed that while allegations under Section 307 IPC are serious, the complainant had been discharged from the hospital and no medical documentation was placed on record by the state demonstrating ongoing hospitalization or life-threatening injuries.

The court noted that the dispute arose from an old financial vehicle mortgage transaction between acquaintances, rendering the specific roles and intention of the accused matters to be established during a full-fledged trial.

Holding that the petitioners are local residents of Bengaluru and Ramanagara whose presence can be secured through reporting conditions, the court concluded that the prosecution’s concerns regarding investigation cooperation and witness protection could be effectively managed by imposing strict terms.

Final Pre-Arrest Bail Order and Imposed Conditions

Answering the point for consideration in the affirmative, the Sessions Court allowed the petition filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. and granted anticipatory bail to Ravi Tej, M. Santhosh, Ravi Kumar, Charan M., and Manoj P. in Crime No. 93/2024 of Byatarayanapura Police Station.

The court directed that in the event of their arrest, the petitioners shall be released on bail upon executing a personal bond for ₹1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) each with two sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the police, subject to the following conditions:

• The petitioners shall appear before the court on all dates of hearing.
• The petitioners shall appear before the Investigating Officer whenever called upon for the purpose of investigation.
• The petitioners shall not tamper with the evidence and shall not threaten, induce, or allure the prosecution witnesses in whatsoever manner.
• The petitioners shall not involve themselves in any criminal activity.
• The petitioners shall produce permanent address proof documents.