Bengaluru, September 5, 2023 – The LX Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, has granted anticipatory bail to Deepak B (Accused No. 1), a contractor, in connection with a case filed by the Bommanahalli Police Station regarding the unauthorized digging of roads for laying optical fiber cables (OFC).
The bail application, Crl. Misc. No. 8360/2023, was filed under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. by the petitioner, who was booked in Bommanahalli Police Station Crime No. 210/2023 for offences punishable under Section 283 (Danger or obstruction in public way or line of navigation) read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
Details of the Allegations
The case was registered based on a complaint lodged by the Assistant Executive Engineer (AEE) of the Bommanahalli Sub Division, Bilekahalli, Bangalore. The AEE stated in the First Information Report (FIR) that on July 14, 2023, it was observed in Ward Nos. 175, 188, and 189 in Hongasandra, Balaji Layout, and Kodichikkanahalli Main Road that roads were being dug up without the necessary official permission.
The petitioner, Deepak B, was identified as the contractor (A-1), and another individual (A-2) was named as the representative of the Jio company, for which the cables were being laid. When the AEE visited the spot again on July 15, 2023, the workers had abandoned the site, prompting the official to seek legal action against those responsible for the unauthorized excavation and obstruction.
Petitioner’s Defense and the Issue of Permission
Deepak B, represented by Sri. RVR., Advocate, contended that he was innocent and was undertaking “public essential work for the public purpose laying cable.” His primary defense rested on the claim that the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) had already issued a circular on February 10, 2023, granting permission for laying OFC cables. He argued that the complainant had knowingly filed a police complaint despite the existence of this permission.
The petitioner further asserted that there was no material on record to suggest he was laying cables illegally. He emphasized his deep roots in society, being a permanent resident with movable and immovable properties, and assured the Court of his willingness to abide by any conditions imposed, including furnishing surety.
The Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail, reiterating the facts of the FIR and expressing the usual apprehension that if released, the accused might threaten witnesses, destroy evidence, or abscond. The prosecution contended that there were no sufficient grounds to grant the anticipatory bail.
Court’s Reasoning and Conclusion
The LX Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Sri Narashimsa.M.V., considered the arguments and reviewed the documents submitted by the petitioner, including a copy of the BBMP permission dated February 10, 2023, for laying Optical Fiber Cable, and the petitioner’s Aadhar card.
The Court noted that although the charges were initially under Section 283 of the IPC, the digging of public roads could potentially attract Section 4 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984. This section prescribes punishment ranging from not less than one year up to ten years, making the offense non-bailable.
However, the Court focused on the key mitigating factor raised by the defense: the BBMP permission. The Judge acknowledged that the records submitted suggest that permission had been granted by the BBMP.
The Court held that the validity of the permission—specifically, “Whether said permission pertains to the place where road digging was being undertaken, whether the permission is valid”—is a complex matter that must be determined during the investigation.
Crucially, the Court reasoned that since the records pertaining to the grant of permission were in the custody of the BBMP, the question of the petitioner “destructing them does not arise.” Furthermore, the offense alleged, even if considered under the stricter Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, is not punishable with life or death imprisonment.
Based on these factors, the Court ruled in the affirmative, concluding that the bail application deserved to be allowed.
Conditions for Release
The Court, therefore, allowed the anticipatory bail petition and ordered that Deepak B (A-1) be enlarged on bail in the event of his arrest by the Bommanahalli police, subject to the following conditions:
- Personal Bond and Surety: The petitioner shall execute his personal bond for a sum of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) with one surety for the like sum.
- No Witness Tampering: The petitioner shall not threaten the witness in any manner.
- Cooperation with I.O.: The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer on or before September 20, 2023, and cooperate with the investigation in all respects.
- Cancellation Clause: Violation of any of the bail conditions would result in the cancellation of the anticipatory bail.
This decision underscores the judiciary’s approach to balancing the need for investigation with the right to liberty, particularly where documents suggesting official sanction are presented by the accused in a case primarily rooted in regulatory non-compliance.