The LXVIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Court in Bengaluru has granted anticipatory bail to six individuals, including Krishna Murthy.K and Varadaraju.K, in connection with an assault and criminal intimidation case registered at the Magadi Road Police Station. The court, presided over by Sri. Sabappa, ruled that the dispute appeared to stem from a neighborhood quarrel over the placement of a water tank rather than premeditated criminal intent.
The petitioners in the case, identified as Krishna Murthy.K, Varadaraju.K, Mahalakshmi.K, Meenakshi.K, Manjula.K, and P. Prajwal, sought legal protection following the registration of Crime No. 55/2024. The police had booked them under Sections 327 (Voluntarily causing hurt to extort property), 323 (Punishment for voluntarily causing hurt), 504 (Intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace), and 506 (Punishment for criminal intimidation) read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
The Genesis of the Neighbor Dispute
The legal proceedings were initiated based on a complaint lodged by Smt. Jaya. According to the prosecution’s version, the conflict began on February 24, 2024, when officials from the Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board (BWSSB) arrived near the complainant’s house to position a water tank. Smt. Jaya reportedly objected to the parking of the tank without the owner’s explicit permission.
The complaint alleged that the petitioners, who are neighbors of Smt. Jaya, intervened and began abusing her in filthy language. The situation escalated into physical violence, with allegations that the complainant was assaulted on her face and chest. Specifically, the sixth petitioner, P. Prajwal, was accused of using an iron box to assault her.
The conflict reportedly continued the following day when family members of the complainant questioned the petitioners. Smt. Jaya alleged that the petitioners assaulted her sister’s children and forcibly took a 15-gram gold chain, while Varadaraju allegedly took a mobile phone from her brother.
Arguments for Anticipatory Bail
The counsel for the petitioners, Sri. C. Srinivas, argued that the complaint was a fabrication rooted in a long-standing neighborhood grudge. He pointed out a one-day delay in filing the FIR, which he suggested was used to concoct a false narrative. Crucially, the defense highlighted that a counter-complaint had been filed by the first petitioner, who had also sustained injuries during the altercation.
The defense further contended that the offenses alleged were not punishable by death or life imprisonment and were triable by a Magistrate. They emphasized that the petitioners were willing to cooperate with the investigation and abide by any conditions imposed by the court.
On the other hand, the Public Prosecutor opposed the bail, stating that the investigation was still in progress. The prosecution expressed concerns that since the petitioners lived in rented accommodations, they might abscond or tamper with evidence if granted liberty.
Court Observations on Case and Counter-Case
After reviewing the materials, the court noted that the root cause of the entire incident was a disagreement over BWSSB parking. The Judge observed that the existence of a counter-complaint filed by the first petitioner against the complainant suggested a “case and counter-case” scenario.
The court remarked that it was not possible to ascertain the absolute truth at this preliminary stage without a full trial. The Judge noted that there appeared to be no clear criminal intent to extort property, but rather a spontaneous quarrel between neighbors. The court emphasized the need to balance the necessity of a fair investigation with the prevention of unjustified detention and harassment.
Terms and Conditions of the Bail Order
The court allowed the petition, directing that the petitioners be released on bail in the event of their arrest, subject to executing personal bonds of Rs. 50,000 each with two sureties. To safeguard the interests of the prosecution, several conditions were imposed:
- The petitioners must appear before the Investigating Officer within 30 days to cooperate with the probe.
- They are strictly prohibited from tampering with prosecution witnesses.
- They must furnish address proof to the police and are not allowed to leave the court’s jurisdiction without prior permission.
- They must mark their attendance at the Magadi Road Police Station on the second Sunday of every month until the final report is filed.
The court warned that any violation of these conditions would allow the Investigating Officer to move for the cancellation of the bail. This ruling provides a temporary reprieve for the Krishna Murthy family as the Magadi Road police continue their investigation into the neighborhood clash.