A Mangaluru court has granted anticipatory bail to B.K. Imtiyaz and street vendor Shantha, who were accused of obstructing and abusing Mangaluru City Corporation (MCC) officials during a clearance drive.

  • Anticipatory bail granted to B.K. Imtiyaz and Shantha.
  • Accused of abusing MCC officials and obstructing public duty on July 26.
  • Court ruled that the accused are not habitual offenders and the crimes were not grave.

In a significant legal development, a Mangaluru court has granted anticipatory bail to Shantha, a street vendor, and B.K. Imtiyaz, the honorary president of the District Street Vendors Association. The duo had been embroiled in a legal battle following allegations of abusing Mangaluru City Corporation (MCC) officials during a vendor clearance drive.

The incident dates back to July 26, when the MCC conducted a drive to clear street vendors from designated areas. According to the authorities, the operation was carried out in strict adherence to the orders of the Supreme Court and directions issued by the MCC Commissioner.

Read Also:Maharashtra Officials Attribute Mass Exodus of 600 Students from 'Haunted' Hostel to Stress

A formal complaint was lodged by the MCC in-charge Zonal Commissioner, Bharathi, at the Mangaluru South Police Station. The complaint alleged that Ms. Shantha and Mr. Imtiyaz instigated other vendors to obstruct the drive by climbing onto the vehicles used for the clearance. Furthermore, it was alleged that they abused Zonal Commissioner Bharathi and Health Inspector Deepika Shalini D’Souza, attempting to assault them while they were discharging their legal duties.

Why This Matters

BozokMedia analysis shows that this case highlights the volatile intersection of urban governance and the livelihoods of the urban poor. While the MCC is mandated to keep public spaces clear as per judicial orders, the lack of structured relocation for vendors often leads to spontaneous unrest. This legal outcome underscores the judiciary's tendency to avoid pre-trial detention for non-violent, first-time offenders in administrative disputes.

"The tension between municipal enforcement and street vending rights is a systemic issue that requires policy-level solutions rather than just police intervention."

The accused were charged under Sections 132, 115(2), 352, and 49, read with Section 3(5), of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS). In response, the petitioners sought protection from arrest under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita.

Presiding Judge Basavaraj, while allowing the petition on August 14, noted that there was no evidence to suggest that the petitioners were habitual offenders. The court further observed that the alleged offences were not of a grave nature and that the police did not require the accused for further custodial interrogation.

As a condition for bail, the judge directed the police to release the accused upon the execution of personal bonds worth ₹75,000 each, supported by one surety. The court also imposed strict conditions: the accused must not tamper with witnesses, must not abscond, and must refrain from committing similar offences in the future.

Did You Know?: The Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014, was specifically designed to protect vendors from arbitrary eviction until a proper survey is completed.

Frequently Asked Questions

1. What were the specific charges against the vendors?
They were charged under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) for obstructing public servants and using abusive language.

2. What were the conditions for the bail?
The court required a personal bond of ₹75,000 each and a directive not to tamper with witnesses or commit similar offences.