KABC010161922022
IN THE COURT OF XLV ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS
JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY (CCH-46)
DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF JULY, 2022
PRESENT:
Sri. Manjunatha, B. A., LL.B.,
XLV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru.
CRL.MISC. No.6034/2022
Petitioner
Anirudha Dixit
S/o Nidhindra Dixit,
A/a 38 Yrs.,
C/o 9/54, Bahar B, Saraha
States
Jankipuram, Lucknow,
Uttar Pradesh-226 021.
And also r/a Flat No.307, LAA
glor Apartment,
4th Main, BTM II Stage,
Bengaluru-560 068.
(By Sri/Smt; Bhanu Ravinder,
Advocate)
AND
Respondent
State by Mico Layout P.S.,
Bengaluru.
(By the learned Public
Prosecutor)
2
Crl.Misc.No.6034/2022
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.98/2022
in the interest of justice.
2. On the basis of the complaint filed by the
complainant-Smt.Ritika Sharma, who is the wife of petitioner,
the case was registered against the petitioner in Crime
No.98/2022 for the offences punishable U/s.498A and 506 of
IPC. Now the petitioner being accused is apprehending his
arrest at the hands of 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.

3
Crl.Misc.No.6034/2022
5. The following points are arises for consideration of this
Court:
1. Whether the petitioner has made out
sufficient
grounds
anticipatory
bail
in
for
his
granting
favour
in
Cr.No.98/2022 of Mico Layout 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
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.98/2022 against the petitioner on the basis of
complaint filed by Smt.Ritika Sharma, the wife of petitioner for
the offences punishable U/s.498A and 506 of IPC.

The
petitioner is accused as per the FIR. Admittedly, the Petitioner is
the husband of the alleged Complainant-Smt.Ritika Sharma,
which is not in dispute.
It is the case of the complainant that on 12.06.2015 the
marriage of accused was solemnized with the complainant
Since August 2021 the accused addicted to consume alcohol
and subjected her to physical and mental cruelty by abusing,
assaulter her. Further the accused by having illicit relationship
with other women harassing the complainant. And on 7.4.2022
the accused by assaulting threatened her with life anbd also
4
Crl.Misc.No.6034/2022
threatened her that he would sent mail to her family members
and to the company where she works. On 26.04.2022 unable
to tolerate the harassment of the accused, the complainant left
the matrimonial home and started to reside at her sisters’
house. Unable to bear the physical and 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 and 506 of
IPC, perhaps the said offence is 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 Mico Layout P.S., in Crime
No.98/2022 on 6.5.2022 at 14.15 hours for an offence
punishable U/s.498A and 506of IPC. The documents would
disclose that there is a matrimonial dispute between petitioner
5
Crl.Misc.No.6034/2022
and the complainant. Admittedly, the petitioner is the husband of
the alleged complainant – Smt.Ritika Sharma, against whom the
filing of the complaint is sufficient to draw apprehension in the
minds of the petitioner regarding his arrest in non-bailable
offence.
11. Whether the petitioner has committed the alleged
offences 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:-
6
Crl.Misc.No.6034/2022
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
one surety for like sum to the satisfaction of the
concerned I.O.,/Magistrate in the event of his arrest in
the case in Crime No.98/2022 of Mico Layout 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 give
attendance before the concerned I.O., once in a
month i.e., preferably on first Sunday of every month
in between 10.00 a.m. and 5.00 p.m. till filing of
charge sheet 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.

7
Crl.Misc.No.6034/2022
5.He shall not commit similar offences or any
offences during the pendency of case,
6.He
shall
appear
before
the
concerned
Magistrate Court as and when directed.
7.He shall not leave the jurisdiction of the
concerned Court without the prior permission.
8.He shall not change his place of residence
outside the jurisdiction of concerned Court without
prior intimation, and
9.He shall also furnish the notarized copy of his
residential id address proof.
(Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer directly on Computer,
corrected by me and then pronounced in open Court on this the 1st day of July,
2022)
(Manjunatha)
XLV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru.

8
Crl.Misc.No.6034/2022
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.