The LXXI Additional City Civil and Sessions Court in Bengaluru has granted anticipatory bail to four individuals, including K. Subramani, in connection with a criminal case involving allegations of assault and outraging the modesty of a local political leader. The order, delivered by Judge Smt. K.S. Jyothishree on January 23, 2023, comes amid a complex land dispute that has resulted in cross-complaints between the parties involved.

The petitioners in the case, identified as K. Subramani (64), Krishna Murthy (28), Krishna alias Krishnappa (52), and Smt. Hemavathi (38), sought legal protection against arrest following the registration of Crime No. 9/2023 at the K R Puram Police Station. The charges against them include sections of the Indian Penal Code related to wrongful restraint, assault, criminal intimidation, and outraging the modesty of a woman.

Background of the Dispute

The complainant in the case is the Vice President of the BJP Women Morcha and a known social worker in the locality. According to her complaint, the incident occurred on January 12, 2023, around 2:00 p.m. on the Priyadarshini Layout Main Road in Basavanapura. She alleged that the four petitioners, acting with a common intention, intercepted her path and subjected her to verbal abuse in filthy language.

The complaint further detailed a physical confrontation where the accused allegedly dragged her by her hands, pulled her hair, and assaulted her. The complainant also claimed she was threatened with dire consequences regarding her life.

Defense Claims of Political and Property Rivalry

During the hearing, the counsel for the petitioners, Sri. Srikanth B.G., argued that the case was a fabrication intended to harass his clients. The defense highlighted that the incident was not an isolated act of aggression but was deeply rooted in a property conflict involving PTCL (Prevention of Transfer of Certain Lands) Grant Lands.

The court was informed that Petitioner No. 4, Smt. Hemavathi, resides on the disputed land in Survey No. 25/1, a matter that is currently pending before the Honorable High Court of Karnataka. The defense alleged that on the very day of the purported assault, the complainant and her followers had partially demolished Hemavathi’s dwelling house using a JCB machine. This led to a separate criminal case, Crime No. 8/2023, being registered against the complainant and her associates.

The petitioners contended that they were law-abiding citizens and that the social worker was using her political influence to exploit local property owners and gain illegal control over land.

The Court’s Observations

The prosecution, represented by the Public Prosecutor, opposed the bail plea, arguing that there were prima facie materials suggesting the involvement of the petitioners and that their release could pose a threat to the complainant.

However, Judge K.S. Jyothishree observed that the dispute was clearly a “counter case” scenario arising from a land-related quarrel. The court noted that the Investigating Officer had already completed a major portion of the investigation, including conducting the mahazar (spot inspection) and recording witness statements.

Crucially, the court found that the alleged offences were not punishable by death or life imprisonment and were triable by a Magistrate. The judge remarked that the involvement of the petitioners remained a matter for trial and that there was no substantial reason to deny them the benefit of anticipatory bail at this stage.

Terms of the Bail Order

In its final order, the court directed the K R Puram Police to release the petitioners in the event of their arrest, subject to specific conditions designed to ensure the integrity of the ongoing legal process.

Each petitioner is required to execute a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with a surety of a like sum. Furthermore, the court has strictly prohibited the petitioners from threatening the complainant or any other witnesses involved in the case.

The ruling emphasizes the judiciary’s role in preventing the misuse of criminal machinery in civil disputes, particularly when cross-complaints suggest a deeper conflict than a simple criminal act. By granting this relief, the court has ensured that the petitioners can defend themselves in the ongoing land litigation without the immediate threat of incarceration.