KABC010235292023
IN THE COURT OF XLV ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS
JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY (CCH-46)
DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2023
PRESENT:
Sri. Manjunatha, B.A., LL.B.,
XLV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.
CRL. MISC. No.8536/2023
Petitioner
Anantha Prasad.S
S/o Late A. Sathyanarayana,
a/a 53 yrs.,
R/a No.206, VS Cozy Apartment,
2nd Floor, 18th Cross, 6th Phase,
JP Nagar, Bangalore-560 078.
(By Sri/Smt; M. Radhika, Adv.,)
AND
Respondent
State by Puttenahalli P. S.,
Bengaluru.
(By the learned Public Prosecutor)
ORDER ON BAIL PETITION FILED U/S.438 OF Cr.P.C.,
The learned counsel for the petitioner has filed bail
petition U/s.438 of Cr.P.C., to grant anticipatory bail in favour
of the petitioner and also direct the respondent police to
release him on bail in the event of his arrest in their Crime
No.265/2023 in the interest of justice.
2. On the basis of the complaint filed by the
complainant-Smt.Asha Raghavendra, a/a 47 yrs., who is the
2
Crl.Misc.No.8536/2023
wife of petitioner, the case was registered against the
petitioner in Crime No.265/2023 for the offences punishable U/
s.498A, 355 and 506 of IPC. Now the petitioner being accused
is apprehending his arrest by the respondent police. Hence,
the petitioner constrained to file this petition and thereby he
has prayed for allowing the petition.
3. The learned Public Prosecutor has filed objection in
detail by reiterating the contents of the complaint and
contended that this bail petition is not maintainable in law or on
facts of the case. Further she has reiterated the contents of
complaint and also contended that if petitioner is granted bail at
the stage of investigation, then the petitioner shall again involve
in causing mental and physical harassment to the complainant.
It is also the objection of the prosecution that the petitioner
would tamper the prosecution witness and hamper the
investigation by not co-operating the respondent police and has
prayed for dismissal of the bail petition.
4. Heard the arguments on both sides and perused the
materials on record.
5. The following points are arises for consideration of this
Court:
1. Whether the petitioner has made out sufficient
grounds for granting anticipatory bail in his favour in
Cr.No.265/2023 of Puttenahalli P. S., at this stage as
sought for?
2. What order?
6. This court has answered the above points are as
under:
Point No.1: In the affirmative
3
Crl.Misc.No.8536/2023
Point No.2: As per final order
for the following:REASONS
7.Point No.1: On considering the papers on record, it is
evident to note that the respondent police have registered a
case in Crime No.265/2023 against the petitioner on the basis
of complaint filed by complainant-Smt.Asha Raghavendra, a/a
47 Yrs., who is the wife of petitioner for the offences punishable
U/s.498A, 355 and 506 of IPC. Admittedly, the petitioner is the
husband
of
the
alleged
defacto
complainant-Smt.Asha
Raghavendra, which is not in dispute.
It is the case of the complainant that on 17.04.2022 the
marriage of accused was solemnized with the complainant, and
out of the wedlock they blessed with a female child. Since from
the marriage the accused subjected her to physical and mental
cruelty by having illicit relationship with 3-4 women, when she
enquire the same, the accused harassing the complainant, the
accused demanded the complainant and her father for
Rs.1,500,000/- to purchase a site at Hosur, and received the
same from her father and deposited the same to the account of
the owner of the said site, thereafter the accused without
intimating the complainant and her father, sold the same for
Rs.4,50,000/-. And on 25.08.2023 at 7.15 on the occasion of
Varamahalakshmi festival the complaint awakened the accused
who slept in the hall, at that time the accused picked up quarrel
with the complainant, assaulted her with chappal on her eyes,
cheek, chest head and other parts of the body, subjected her to
tyranny and threatened her. Unable to bear the physical and
4
Crl.Misc.No.8536/2023
mental cruelty caused by the accused, complainant constrained
to file complaint against the petitioner before respondent police.
8. The contention of petitioner is that he is innocent of the
offence alleged against him and he has not committed any such
offence. Per-contra as submitted by the learned Public
Prosecutor, the investigation is at the initial stage and it is yet to
be completed. Hence, it is not proper to believe or consider that
the petitioner is innocent of the alleged offences.
9. It is pertinent to note that even for the sake of
argument, it is accepted that there is prima-facie case against
the petitioner for the offences punishable U/s.498A, 355 and
506 of IPC, the said offences are not punishable with death or
imprisonment for life. The offence U/s.498-A of IPC is though
non-bailable, but it is exclusively triable by the Magistrate.
10.It is well settled principle of law that the granting of bail
is discretionary power of the Court and every case should be
considered on the basis of facts of each case. The certified
copies of complaint and FIR produced by the petitioner
discloses that a complaint has been lodged by the complainant,
who is the wife of petitioner at Puttenahalli P.S., in Crime
No.265/2023 on 28.08.2023 at 11.50 hours for the offences
punishable U/s.498A, 355 and 506 of IPC. The documents
would disclose that there is a matrimonial dispute between
petitioner and the complainant. Admittedly, the petitioner is the
husband of the alleged complainant-Smt.Asha Raghavendra,
against whom the filing of the complaint is sufficient to draw
apprehension in the minds of the petitioners regarding their
arrest in non-bailable offence.

5
Crl.Misc.No.8536/2023
11. Whether the petitioner has committed the alleged
offence as contended by the complainant is a matter, which has
to be decided only at the time of full-fledged trial.

At this
juncture, when the petitioner is ready to abide by the terms and
conditions imposed by the court and when he is ready to offer
due and adequate surety for his release on bail, then this court
is of the opinion that no purpose will be served by allowing the
respondent police to apprehend the petitioner and to keep him
in custody. The petitioner is the the permanent resident as
shown in the cause title and this fact has not been disputed by
the prosecution, as such the presence of petitioner can be
secured easily, hence, the question of absconding of the
petitioner does not arise at all. The objections raised by the
learned Public Prosecutor can be met by imposing stringent
conditions.

Absolutely there is no ground made out by the
prosecution to reject this bail petition. Hence, under these
circumstances, the petitioner has made out sufficient ground for
granting anticipatory bail in his favour at this stage as prayed for
as there exist reason to believe that he may be arrested in nonbailable offence. Accordingly, I answer Point No.1 in the
affirmative.
12. Point No.2: In view of answer of this Court on point
No.1, this court pass the following:ORDER
The bail petition filed by the Petitioner U/s.438 of
Cr.P.C. is hereby allowed.
The Petitioner is ordered to be released on bail
on his executing personal bond for Rs.1,00,000/- with
6
Crl.Misc.No.8536/2023
two sureties for like sum to the satisfaction of the
concerned I.O.,/Magistrate in the event of his arrest in
the case in Crime No.265/2023 of Puttenahalli P. S.,
subject to following conditions:
1.The Petitioner shall make himself available for
interrogation by the I.O. as and when required till the
final report is filed. Further, he shall assist the I.O. in
further investigation of the case. He shall mark his
attendance twice in a month i.e., first and third Sunday
of every month in between 10.00 a.m. and 2.00 p.m.
before the I.O., till filing of final report or further orders
whichever is earlier.
2.The Petitioner shall surrender before the
concerned Police within 30 days from the date of this
order without fail.
3.He shall not directly or indirectly make any
inducement,
threat
or
promise
to
any
person
acquainted with the facts of the case so as to
dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the
Court or to the concerned I.O.,
4.He shall not hamper further investigation of the
case and tamper with prosecution witnesses in any
manner and shall not intimidate the complainant.
5.He shall not commit similar offences or any
offences in future,
6.He
shall
appear
before
the
Magistrate Court as and when directed,
concerned
7
Crl.Misc.No.8536/2023
7.He shall not leave the jurisdiction of the
Bangalore City without the prior permission of the
concerned Court.
8.He shall not change his place of residence
outside the jurisdiction of Bangalore City without prior
intimation of the concerned court, and
9.He shall also furnish the notarized copy of his
residential id address proof.
10.In the event of violation of any of the above
conditions, the above bail shall stand automatically
canceled.
(Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer directly on Computer,
corrected by me and then pronounced in open Court on this the 11th day of
September, 2023)
(Manjunatha)
XLV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru.

8
Crl.Misc.No.8536/2023
Order pronounced in the open court
vide its separate order
ORDER
The bail petition filed by the petitioner
U/s.438 of Cr.P.C. is hereby allowed.
(Manjunatha )
XLV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru.