Bengaluru, September 19, 2023 – In a case underscoring the severity of neighborhood disputes, the LXIX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge (CCH 70) in Bengaluru granted regular bail to petitioner Bharath S. @ Bablu in connection with a violent clash that arose over rainwater drainage. The order, delivered by Sri. Balagopalakrishna, C/c of the 69th Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, allowed the bail petition filed under Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.).

The petitioner, Bharath S. @ Bablu, aged about 25 years, was arrested in connection with Cr. No. 110/2023 registered at Srirampura Police Station. The case involves grave charges under the Indian Penal Code (IPC), including Sections 143 (Unlawful assembly), 147 (Rioting), 148 (Rioting, armed with deadly weapon), 341 (Wrongful restraint), 323 (Voluntarily causing hurt), 324 (Voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means), 307 (Attempt to murder), 504 (Intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace), read with 149 (Every member of unlawful assembly guilty of offence committed in prosecution of common object).

Case Background: The Rainwater Dispute

The incident, as detailed in the complaint lodged by one Gopi, occurred on August 6, 2023. The root of the altercation was a quarrel between neighbors regarding rainwater. The complaint states that the initial skirmish involved female members from both sides, where Vasanthi, Kannagi, Nandini, and Selvi allegedly assaulted a woman named Manjula, causing her bleeding injuries.

When the complainant, along with Sunil, Rakesh, Vishwa, and others, intervened to question the assault, the dispute escalated. The accused persons, including the petitioner Bharath, along with Vijay, Saravana, and Krishnamurthy @ Moosa, allegedly went to a spot near Ambedkar Nagar, near Mariyamma temple. There, they allegedly abused the victims in “filthy language” and proceeded to assault them with a stone, causing bleeding injuries. All the injured parties received medical treatment following the attack, and a complaint was lodged leading to the arrest of the accused, including the present petitioner.

Petitioner’s Grounds for Bail

Through his counsel, Sri. Anil Kumar K.R., the petitioner asserted his innocence, claiming he was falsely implicated with mala fide intention. He argued that there was no motive or intention to kill the injured, and the complaint was lodged due to a “previous grudge.” The petitioner contended that there were no eye-witnesses to definitively prove he had assaulted the injured.

The defense also highlighted that the petitioner’s custodial interrogation was no longer necessary, a point supported by the remand application details. The petitioner emphasized his standing as a permanent resident of his mentioned address, coming from a respectable family, with no previous bad antecedents or pending criminal cases. He expressed his readiness to comply with any stringent conditions and furnish surety to the court’s satisfaction, urging that his continued detention would cause undue hardship as he is the sole earning member of his family.

Prosecution’s Opposition

The learned Public Prosecutor filed objections vehemently opposing the grant of bail. The prosecution argued that the offences committed were “grave in nature,” involving the assault of victims and the use of a stone. The Prosecutor stressed that the investigation was still in progress and that releasing the petitioner might enable him to commit similar offences in the future, making it difficult to secure his presence for the investigation and trial. The prosecution insisted that the accused had assaulted the complainant on “vital parts of the body” and had “attempted to commit murder.”

Court’s Rationale and Order

The court carefully considered the arguments, the police report, the complaint, and the documents produced by the petitioner. The crucial evidence considered was a letter from Mallige Hospital. This letter indicated that one of the victims, Sunil, was admitted on August 7, 2023, with a history of assault and was subsequently discharged on August 10, 2023.

The court’s analysis focused on two main aspects: the status of the investigation and the severity of the injuries. The judge observed that while the grave offence of attempt to murder (Section 307 IPC) was alleged, the medical record from Mallige Hospital was telling. Specifically, the court noted, “The letter of the Mallige Hospital shows that, there is no threat to the life of the complainant.” This finding significantly mitigated the severity of the Section 307 charge for the purpose of bail.

Furthermore, the court invoked the universally accepted legal doctrine as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in cases like State of Rajasthan vs. Balchand @ Baliay (AIR 1977 SCC 2447), which established that “bail is a rule and jail is an exception.” The court found “no sufficient exception reasons” to justify the continued judicial custody of the petitioner.

The court also acknowledged that the petitioner’s presence was not required for further investigation, and as a permanent resident, his appearance could be easily secured during the trial. The prosecution’s apprehension of non-cooperation or tampering was addressed by the imposition of strict conditions.

Bail Conditions

Concluding that it was a fit case for granting bail, the court allowed the petition and ordered the release of Bharath S. @ Bablu on regular bail. The petitioner must execute a personal bond for $\text{Rs. } 1,00,000/$ (One Lakh Rupees) with one surety for the like sum, subject to the following mandatory conditions:

• The Petitioner shall not tamper with the prosecution witnesses either directly or indirectly.
• He shall appear before the Investigating Officer (IO) as and when required and shall appear before the court regularly.
• He shall not abscond from his residence and must furnish his address proof to the concerned police.
• He shall not involve in any kind of offence while on bail.
• He must mark his attendance at the Srirampura Police Station between 10:00 AM and 6:00 PM once every 15 days until the charge sheet is filed.

The court clarified that the petitioner is to be released on bail provided his custody is not required in any other ongoing case.