BENGALURU – In a significant legal development concerning family disputes and criminal allegations, the LXII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge in Bengaluru has granted bail to 66-year-old Ramakrishna D.G. The petitioner was accused of a chemical attack on his own son following a long-standing property row. The order, delivered by Judge Sri. A. Earanna on April 8, 2024, emphasizes the principle that judicial custody should not serve as a pre-trial conviction, especially when custodial interrogation is no longer required.
The case, registered under Crime No. 123/2024 by the Bagalagunte Police, involved serious charges under the Indian Penal Code, including Section 326A, which pertains to voluntarily causing grievous hurt by use of acid or other substances. Despite the gravity of the charges, the court found that the circumstances warranted the petitioner’s release on bail.
The Roots of the Conflict: A Family Property Row
The criminal proceedings were initiated based on a complaint lodged by one Kiran, who is the son of the petitioner. According to the prosecution’s papers, the conflict stems from a self-acquired property belonging to the petitioner, located opposite Arunodaya Hospital in Mallasandra.
The complainant alleged that his sister, Kalavathi, had been attempting to grab the property and had frequently created disturbances to prevent him from visiting their father’s house. The specific incident leading to the arrest occurred on the night of March 22, 2024. Kiran claimed that when he visited his father’s residence to discuss the ‘Thithikarya’ (memorial rituals) for his late mother, he was met with verbal abuse. He further alleged that his father, Ramakrishna, threw a chemical substance on his eyes and chest, resulting in injuries that required hospitalization.
Legal Arguments for and against Bail
Represented by Advocate Manjunath M.R., the petitioner maintained his innocence, asserting that the allegations were a fabrication rooted in a domestic property dispute. The defense highlighted that Ramakrishna is a senior citizen with deep roots in the society and no prior criminal record. Crucially, the defense pointed out that the victim had already been discharged from the hospital, suggesting the injuries were not life-threatening. They argued that since the police had already conducted the spot mahazar (inspection) and did not seek further custodial interrogation, continued detention was unnecessary.
The Public Prosecutor strongly opposed the petition, citing the heinous nature of Section 326A. The state expressed concerns that if released, the 66-year-old might threaten witnesses, destroy evidence, or commit similar offenses. The prosecution argued that the gravity of the offense should outweigh the fact that the victim had been discharged from medical care.
The Court’s Detailed Reasoning
In evaluating Point No. 1—whether sufficient grounds existed for bail—the court noted several key factors. First, it acknowledged the undisputed fact that the injured complainant had been discharged from the hospital. While the offense under Section 326A is non-bailable and serious, the court observed that it is a matter to be tested during the trial.
Judge A. Earanna noted that the Investigating Officer had not sought further custodial interrogation or recovery from the accused. The order stated, “No person shall be kept in the judicial custody without proper and cogent reason. If such person kept in judicial custody it amounts to pre-trial conviction.” The court found that the apprehension of the prosecution regarding the petitioner fleeing from justice could be adequately addressed through stringent conditions rather than continued incarceration.
Furthermore, the court took into account the domestic nature of the dispute, noting the familial relationship between the parties and the underlying property issues that likely triggered the altercation.
Bail Conditions and Final Order
The court allowed the petition under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. and ordered the release of Ramakrishna D.G. upon the execution of a personal bond of Rs 1,00,000 with one surety of a like sum. To safeguard the interests of the prosecution and ensure the integrity of the ongoing investigation, the court imposed the following conditions:
- Mandatory Attendance: The petitioner must appear before the court on all hearing dates without fail, barring unavoidable circumstances.
- Prevention of Recurrence: The petitioner is strictly prohibited from indulging in similar types of offenses in the future.
- Jurisdictional Restrictions: The petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the court without prior permission.
- Automatic Cancellation: The court warned that any violation of these conditions would lead to the automatic cancellation of the bail order.
This ruling serves as a reminder of the judicial balance required when dealing with elderly petitioners in the context of intense family litigation. By granting bail, the court prioritized the preservation of individual liberty over prolonged detention in cases where the primary investigative steps are already complete.