A City Civil and Sessions Court in Bengaluru has granted anticipatory bail to five individuals, including Tayamma alias Anjanamma and her family members, in connection with an assault and modesty outraging case registered at the Kadugondanahalli Police Station. The order, delivered by Sri Manjunatha, the XLV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, comes amid allegations of a neighborhood dispute that escalated into physical violence. The court observed that the case appeared to be a legal “counterblast” following a previous complaint filed by the petitioners against the current complainant.

The petitioners in the case, identified as Tayamma alias Anjanamma, Shilpa alias Shilpa A, Raghu alias A Raghu, Raja alias Muniraja, and Puttu alias Murali A, sought protection from arrest under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. They were named as accused in Crime Number 155/2024 for various offenses under the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Neighborhood Dispute Leads to Criminal Charges

The legal proceedings were initiated following a complaint by a 56 year old resident named Sagayaraj. According to the prosecution’s case, the incident took place on March 25, 2024. The complainant alleged that at approximately 3.00 p.m., the first and second accused created a nuisance by making the area in front of his house “dirty.” When the complainant’s wife objected to their actions, the accused reportedly responded with verbal abuse and physical assault.

The situation allegedly escalated further at 8.00 p.m. when the complainant attempted to enquire about the afternoon’s incident. The complainant alleged that the accused persons picked a quarrel, during which Tayamma allegedly grabbed him by his shirt collar and slapped him. The other accused persons were alleged to have wrongfully restrained him, while one accused assaulted him on the face. Furthermore, the complaint stated that when Sagayaraj’s wife intervened to stop the fight, she was assaulted and pushed in a manner that outraged her modesty.

The police subsequently registered the case under the following sections of the Indian Penal Code, 1860:

• Section 341: Punishment for wrongful restraint.
• Section 323: Punishment for voluntarily causing hurt.
• Section 354: Assault or criminal force to woman with intent to outrage her modesty.
• Section 504: Intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace.
• Section 149: Every member of unlawful assembly guilty of offence committed in prosecution of common object.

The Defense Argument: A Case of Counterblast

Represented by Advocate S. M. Hajira, the petitioners maintained their innocence, arguing that the charges were fabricated. A pivotal point in the defense was the revelation that petitioner Shilpa had already lodged a prior complaint against Sagayaraj and his associates. That complaint resulted in Crime Number 154/2024 at the same police station, involving similar charges of assault and modesty outraging.

The defense contended that the current case (Crime Number 155/2024) was a direct retaliatory move, or a “counterblast,” intended to harass the family and force them to drop their initial charges. They argued that as permanent residents of Bengaluru with no intention of fleeing, they should be granted protection from custodial interrogation.

Judicial Observation on Liberty and Trial

In evaluating the petition, Judge Manjunatha noted that while the charges, particularly Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, are serious and non bailable, they do not carry the penalty of death or life imprisonment. The court highlighted that these offenses are triable by a Magistrate and that a full trial is necessary to determine the truth behind the conflicting versions of the event.

The judge observed that the existence of the cross complaint (Crime Number 154/2024) lent weight to the possibility of a personal vendetta. The court determined that custodial interrogation was not mandatory for the investigation of these specific charges and that the petitioners’ presence could be secured through stringent bail conditions.

Conditions for Anticipatory Bail

The court allowed the petition, ordering that the petitioners be released on bail in the event of their arrest upon executing a personal bond for 1,00,000 rupees each with one surety. To ensure the integrity of the ongoing investigation, the judge imposed ten specific conditions:

The petitioners must make themselves available for interrogation by the Investigating Officer as required. They must surrender before the concerned police within 30 days of the order. They are strictly prohibited from inducing, threatening, or making promises to any witnesses. They must not hamper the investigation or intimidate the complainant. Furthermore, they are restricted from leaving the jurisdiction of Bengaluru City without prior permission and must not change their place of residence without intimation to the court.

The court warned that any violation of these terms would result in the automatic cancellation of the bail order. This ruling reinforces the judicial principle that in neighborhood disputes involving cross complaints, the liberty of the individuals should be protected unless custodial interrogation is deemed absolutely essential for the recovery of evidence or the progress of the case.