BENGALURU: The Karnataka High Court has ruled that high-rise residential buildings, including compact or “pocket” apartments, cannot be permitted if they pose a public safety risk, particularly to their occupants and nearby residents.
A division bench, consisting of Justice DK Singh and Justice TM Nadaf, made this determination while dismissing a writ appeal from a Bengaluru real estate developer regarding compliance with fire safety setback requirements.
The appeal, filed by Vishnu Sri Builders and Developers, contested an earlier order from a single judge about a modified building sanction plan for an apartment project in Halagevaderahalli, Rajarajeshwari Nagar. The dispute stemmed from a revised No Objection Certificate (NOC) issued by the Karnataka State Fire and Emergency Services on June 13, 2023.
After a fresh inspection following the single judge’s directions, the fire department indicated that the building lacked the necessary 8-meter setback. The single judge then ordered that the modified sanction plan remain on hold until compliance with setback requirements was achieved.
When the case was brought before the division bench, the court reviewed the inspection report and building layout. It concluded that, even with some setback provision, it was insufficient for the maneuverability of fire engines with aerial ladders, which require over 9 meters for effective emergency response.
The court emphasized the importance of public safety, stating that allowing such constructions would jeopardize not only the building’s residents but also the surrounding communities.
‘Live Tracking Not a Valid Bail Condition’
The Karnataka High Court has ruled that requiring an accused individual to continuously share their live location with police is not a valid condition for bail.
This case involved a bail order for Shashi Kumar, also known as Shashi Poojary, which stipulated that he must keep his phone’s location services active and accessible to the investigating officer—a condition that was later contested in the High Court.
Upon reviewing the matter, the court highlighted the limitations of judicial discretion in setting bail conditions. It noted that restrictions must be reasonable and not encroach on an individual’s personal liberty more than necessary.
The court subsequently overturned the requirement for constant location tracking, asserting that such a condition represents excessive intrusion. It stated, “Requiring the accused to share their live location at all times is unjustifiable” and does not conform to lawful bail conditions. The court further stressed that while bail conditions should promote cooperation with investigations and prevent interference, they must not serve as tools for continuous surveillance.
