BENGALURU – The LXIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Court in Bengaluru has granted anticipatory bail to 48-year-old Sateesh Kumar G in a case involving allegations of criminal trespass and property damage. The order, passed by Judge Sri A.V. Patil on January 21, 2023, came after the court observed that the dispute appeared to be primarily civil in nature and the offences alleged did not carry the penalty of life imprisonment or death.
Sateesh Kumar G, a resident of J.C. Nagar, had approached the court under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), apprehending arrest by the Amruthahalli Police. The FIR (Cr.No.13/2023) was registered against him based on a complaint filed by Dr. Anantramayya under Sections 447 and 427 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
Dispute over Srirampura Village Property
The legal battle centers on a plot in Srirampura village, specifically Property No. 154 (Sy.No.46/2). The complainant, Dr. Anantramayya, alleged that he had purchased the land from Lt. Col. Jaishankar Tiwari, who in turn had acquired it from Royal Enclave Developers. According to the complaint, Dr. Anantramayya had secured all necessary titles and constructed a compound wall to protect his possession.
On January 11, 2023, the complainant claimed that upon visiting the site, he discovered that unidentified individuals had trespassed into the property, demolished the compound wall, and dug a trench. When he questioned the workers at the site, they allegedly identified Sateesh Kumar G as their employer and claimed the property belonged to him.
Defense Highlights Civil Suit History
Representing the petitioner, Advocate Akshay Huddar argued that Sateesh Kumar G was being falsely implicated in a matter that was purely civil. The defense presented evidence that the petitioner had purchased the adjacent property in Sy.No.46/3 via an absolute Sale Deed dated February 10, 2015.
The defense also pointed to past litigation, specifically Original Suit (OS) No. 4402/2015. They highlighted that in the judgment of that suit, the court noted the plaintiff (connected to the current complainant’s side) had admitted to having no right, title, or interest over Sy.No.46/3—the land claimed by the petitioner. Sateesh Kumar argued he was not even a party to the other suit mentioned by the complainant (OS No. 6482/2014) and was simply being targeted based on hearsay from workers.
Legal Definitions: Sections 447 and 427 IPC
The charges against the petitioner carry specific legal implications under the Indian Penal Code:
- Section 447 IPC (Criminal Trespass): This section provides the punishment for entering or remaining on another’s property with intent to commit an offence or to intimidate, insult, or annoy. It carries a potential punishment of imprisonment for up to three months, a fine of up to five hundred rupees, or both.
- Section 427 IPC (Mischief Causing Damage): This applies when a person commits “mischief” and causes loss or damage to the amount of fifty rupees or upwards. It is punishable with imprisonment for up to two years, a fine, or both.
While Section 447 is technically classified as non-bailable under specific local interpretations or schedules, it is considered a relatively minor offence in the hierarchy of the IPC.
Court’s Reasoning for Granting Bail
In his analysis, Judge A.V. Patil noted that while the police have the power to arrest without a warrant in cognizable cases, the nature of this particular accusation was heavily tied to a property ownership dispute.
“From the allegations made in the complaint, it appears that the dispute between the parties is civil in nature,” the judge stated. He further noted that the petitioner’s involvement was currently based on the statements of workers and remained a matter to be proven during the trial. Since the offences are triable by a Magistrate and do not involve heinous crimes, the court found it appropriate to protect the petitioner’s liberty.
Conditions of the Bail Order
The court allowed the petition and directed that in the event of his arrest, Sateesh Kumar G be released upon executing a personal bond of Rs. 60,000 with one surety. The bail is subject to several conditions:
- Police Appearance: The petitioner must appear before the Amruthahalli Police within 20 days.
- Interrogation: He must cooperate with the Investigating Officer (I.O.) whenever called for.
- Witness Protection: He is strictly prohibited from tampering with prosecution witnesses.
- Trial Presence: He must appear before the court during the trial and not commit any similar offences.
- Documentation: He must furnish an attested copy of his Aadhaar card and residential proof to the I.O.
The court clarified that this anticipatory bail does not restrict the police’s right to conduct a thorough investigation into the charges.