Argument over dog walk in apartment complex in Bengaluru escalates into scuffle, FIRs filed
Bengaluru (PTI): A dispute between a pet owner and a group of senior citizens over walking a dog inside an apartment complex here allegedly escalated into a scuffle, with both sides filing complaints accusing each other of assault, police said on Saturday.
The incident occurred around 7.30 am on March 3 when Tarun Arora (42) had taken his pet dog for a walk inside the premises of the apartment complex in Varthur where a group of senior citizens were practising yoga and exercise, they said.
A video footage also shows both the parties seen engaging in a heated argument which later escalated into a scuffle.
In his complaint, Arora said he initially did not notice the group and continued walking his dog.
According to him, some members of the group later stopped him and told him that dogs should not be walked in that area, leading to an argument.
Arora alleged that during the altercation, the group verbally abused him using offensive language.
He argued that it was a common area and that he was not causing any obstruction, but the argument continued. As the situation intensified, he tried to call the emergency helpline 112, the FIR stated.
Arora further alleged that while he was moving towards the amphitheatre exit gate, some members of the group continued the verbal abuse. When he attempted to record the incident on his mobile phone, one of them Om Prakash Bajpai (69) allegedly snatched it.
Soon after, about five to six people allegedly attacked him, pushed him to the ground and assaulted him with hands and legs, causing injuries. He later received treatment at a nearby hospital, the complaint stated.
However, members of the senior citizens’ group have levelled counter-allegations against Arora.
As per their complaint, Arora frequently brings his pet dog to the place where they perform yoga despite the apartment association having arranged a separate dog park.
Bajpai and his wife alleged that the dog often moves around behind them and defecates in the area where they sit, making the place unclean, and that Arora continued to bring the pet there despite repeated requests.
On March 3, Arora again came to the same spot with his dog and behaved similarly, they alleged.
The complainants claimed that when they tried to prevent him from taking photographs, his mobile phone accidentally fell to the ground. Enraged by this, Arora allegedly grabbed Bajpai's collar and attempted to choke him by pressing his neck.
They further alleged that when Bajpai’s wife intervened to rescue him, Arora pushed her to the ground, causing injuries.
Based on the complaints from both the parties, two separate cases have been registered under relevant sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita for voluntarily causing hurt, criminal intimidation among other charges and further investigation is underway.
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
Court can reject anticipatory bail but cannot direct accused to surrender: SC
New Delhi (PTI): A court can reject anticipatory bail of an accused but it has no jurisdiction to direct him to surrender before the trial court, the Supreme Court has said.
A bench of Justices J B Pardiwala and Ujjal Bhuyan made the observation while hearing a plea filed by a man accused of cheating and forgery.
"If the court wants to reject the anticipatory bail, it may do so, but the court has no jurisdiction to say that the petitioner should now surrender," the bench said.
The Jharkhand High Court had rejected anticipatory bail plea of the accused and asked him to surrender and seek regular bail.
In this case, a complaint had been filed before a magistrate alleging offences under Sections 323 (voluntarily causing hurt), 420 (cheating), 467 (forgery of valuable security), 468 (forgery for purpose of cheating), 471 (using forged document) and 120B read with 34 of the IPC, in connection with a land dispute.
The high court had dismissed the second anticipatory bail application of the accused on the ground that no new circumstances were shown.
It had relied on its earlier order rejecting his first anticipatory bail plea, in which the court directed the petitioner to surrender before the trial court and seek regular bail in terms of the decision in Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI.
The top court said such a direction was wholly without jurisdiction and said that if a court chooses to reject anticipatory bail, it may do so, but it cannot compel the accused to surrender.
