A City Civil and Sessions Court in Bengaluru has granted anticipatory bail to a sister and brother duo, Kalavathi and Upendra Kumar, who were accused of a chemical attack on their own brother following a long-standing property dispute. The order, delivered by Sri A. Earanna, the LXII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, highlights the complex nature of familial legal battles and the judicial discretion used when civil disputes spill over into criminal allegations.
The legal proceedings arose from a complaint lodged by one Kiran at the Bagalagunte Police Station. Following the complaint, the police registered a case under Crime No. 123/2024. The petitioners, Kalavathi (38) and Upendra Kumar (40), both residents of T. Dasarahalli, Bengaluru, were facing charges under several sections of the Indian Penal Code, most notably Section 326A, which pertains to voluntarily causing grievous hurt by use of acid or other corrosive substances. They were also charged under Sections 323 (voluntarily causing hurt), 504 (intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of peace), and 506 (criminal intimidation), all read with Section 34 (acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention).
The Gist of the Allegations
According to the prosecution, the dispute centers on a self-acquired property belonging to the complainant’s father, Ramakrishnaiah. The complainant, Kiran, alleged that his sister Kalavathi harbored intentions to grab the property and had previously created disturbances to prevent him from visiting their father’s house.
The specific incident reportedly took place on the night of March 22, 2024, at approximately 9:00 PM. Kiran had visited his father’s residence to discuss the ‘Thithikarya’ (religious rites) for his late mother. During this visit, it was alleged that he was abused in filthy language. The situation escalated when a chemical substance was allegedly thrown or sprayed onto his eyes and chest, resulting in injuries.
Arguments for and Against Bail
The petitioners, represented by advocate Nanjegowda H G, maintained their innocence, claiming that the complaint was a retaliatory measure designed to settle scores regarding the property. They argued that the offenses, while serious, did not carry the penalty of death or life imprisonment and were triable by a Magistrate. Furthermore, they emphasized their deep roots in society as permanent residents of Bengaluru and expressed their willingness to comply with any court-mandated conditions.
The Public Prosecutor strongly opposed the petition, emphasizing the severity of the charge under Section 326A. The state argued that the investigation was still in its infancy and that granting anticipatory bail could lead to the petitioners threatening witnesses, tampering with evidence, or fleeing from justice.
The Judicial Decision
In his analysis, Judge A. Earanna noted that the victim, Kiran, had already been discharged from the hospital, a fact not disputed by the prosecution. This suggested that the injuries, while requiring medical attention, were not immediately life-threatening or requiring prolonged hospitalization at the time of the hearing.
The court observed that the core of the issue appeared to be a civil property dispute between siblings. The Judge remarked that the Investigating Officer’s (IO) report did not explicitly seek custodial interrogation or the recovery of any specific items from the petitioners. The court expressed concern that sending the petitioners to jail in the midst of a family property feud might escalate the situation and lead to a multiplication of litigations.
The Judge noted that no evidence was produced to show that Kalavathi and Upendra Kumar were habitual offenders or had other criminal cases pending against them. Consequently, the court found that the risk of them absconding was remote and could be managed through stringent conditions.
Terms of the Anticipatory Bail
The court allowed the petition and directed the Bagalagunte Police to release the petitioners on bail in the event of their arrest, subject to a personal bond of Rs. 1,00,000 each and a separate surety for the same amount.
The petitioners are bound by several conditions, including appearing before the Investigating Officer within 30 days to cooperate with the probe, marking their attendance at the police station once every 30 days (specifically on the second Saturday), and refraining from threatening the complainant or tampering with witnesses. The court warned that any failure to adhere to these conditions would result in the automatic cancellation of the bail order.