Bengaluru, September 25, 2023 – The LXIX Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-70), Sri Balagopalakrishna, acting as c/c Judge, has granted anticipatory bail to Sri C.K. Nagaraj in connection with a case stemming from an alleged property trespass and an altercation with police personnel on duty. The petitioner, aged 58, was facing charges for multiple serious offences including rioting, house trespass, criminal force to deter a public servant from duty, and destruction of property.
The bail order was issued in Crl. Misc. No. 8459/2023, directing the Kengeri Police Station to release C.K. Nagaraj in the event of his arrest in Cr. No. 375/2023. The offences alleged against him are punishable under Sections 427 (Mischief causing damage), 143 (Unlawful assembly), 147 (Rioting), 148 (Rioting, armed with deadly weapon), 149 (Every member of unlawful assembly guilty of offence committed in prosecution of common object), 448 (House-trespass), 291 (Continuance of nuisance after injunction), and 353 (Assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of his duty) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), along with Section 2 of the Prevention of Destruction and Loss of Property Act, 1981.
The Background of the Allegations
The criminal case was registered based on information provided by Shivasiddaiah S., an Assistant Sub-Inspector (ASI) of the Kengeri Police Station. The complaint detailed an incident near House No. 342, 5th main, 2nd cross, where the ASI and another Police Constable (P.C.) were on patrolling duty.
The prosecution’s narrative suggests that the police received credible information about a disturbance at the spot. It was alleged that the property had been vacated two days prior by a Court Commissioner and its possession handed over to M/s Tumakuru Veerashaiva Cooperative Bank Ltd. The complaint stated that despite the court order, the accused, including C.K. Nagaraj, along with approximately 15 persons, formed an unlawful assembly. They were accused of “beating the gate and damaging the same” (Section 427 IPC and Section 2 of PDLP Act).
The core of the confrontation arose when the complainant ASI directed the accused not to commit any offence and to approach the court instead. The FIR alleges that the accused then “pushed the complainant ASI aside and directed the complainant to go away from the spot and threatened the complainant ASI who was on the duty” (Section 353 IPC). The police also noted that accused No. 2 and 3 had already trespassed into the property and were instigating the petitioner (accused No. 1) to commit further trespass.
Petitioner’s Defense and Civil Dispute Context
The petitioner, represented by B.R.K. Law Offices, staunchly denied all allegations, claiming he had been falsely implicated with mala fide intention.
Crucially, the defense placed the criminal complaint within the context of a pre-existing civil dispute. The defense submitted that an original suit, O.S. No. 1439/2023, seeking the relief of permanent injunction, is currently pending before the Prl. Senior Civil Judge. Furthermore, the defense asserted that a temporary injunction order had already been passed in favour of the petitioner.
The defense contended that despite the operative injunction order, the respondent (police/complainant) unlawfully interfered with the petitioner’s possession of the schedule property. The petitioner argued that the respondent police blatantly violated the court’s order and acted without any Magistrate’s order to break open the gate or main door for dispossessing the accused from the house.
The defense emphasized that C.K. Nagaraj is a permanent resident of the address mentioned, comes from a respectable family, and has no bad antecedents or prior convictions, assuring the court of his readiness to abide by all conditions.
Court’s Rationale for Granting Bail
After hearing arguments from both the learned Public Prosecutor (who opposed the bail citing the gravity of the offences and the petitioner’s alleged abscondence) and the defense counsel, the court proceeded to assess the grounds for granting anticipatory bail.
The court noted that while the offences alleged were non-bailable, they were not “exclusively punishable with death or imprisonment for life” and are triable by the learned Magistrate.
The Judge weighed the need for investigation against the liberty of the petitioner, observing: “The contents of the FIR has to be adjudicated only after full fledged trial.” Significantly, the court found that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner was not required for further investigation, especially since the role of the complainant (or the original civil dispute) was dependent on documentary evidence.
The court concluded that the petitioner’s presence during the investigation could be secured by imposing suitable terms and conditions, thereby addressing the apprehension of the prosecution regarding absconding or tampering with witnesses. Finding that the petition deserved to be allowed, the court answered the point for consideration in the affirmative.
Conditions for Release
C.K. Nagaraj was granted anticipatory bail upon executing a personal bond for Rs. 1,00,000/- (One Lakh Rupees) with one surety for the like sum to the satisfaction of the trial court, subject to the following conditions:
- The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer (IO) within 10 days from the date of receipt of this order.
- He shall not threaten the Prosecution witnesses directly or indirectly.
- The petitioner shall cooperate for investigation.
- The petitioner shall not indulge in any other offence.
- The petitioner shall furnish his correct address proof before the trial court.
The ruling grants C.K. Nagaraj protection from arrest, allowing him to contest the criminal charges while pursuing his case in the parallel civil proceedings.