KABC010222092023
IN THE COURT OF XLV ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS
JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY (CCH-46)
DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF AUGUST, 2023
PRESENT:
Sri. Manjunatha, B.A., LL.B.,
XLV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.
CRL. MISC. No.8033/2023
Petitioner
B. S. Shivakumar,
S/o Srinivasa Murthy, a/a 43 Yrs.,
r/a No.214, Sepphings Road,
Shivajinagar, Bangalore-560 001.
(By Sri/Smt; M. Srinivasa, Adv.,)
AND
Respondent
State by East Zone Women 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.126/2023 in the interest of justice.
2. On the basis of the complaint filed by the
complainant-Smt.Mounika, a/a 30 Yrs., who is the wife of
petitioner, the case was registered against the petitioner in
2
Crl.Misc.No.8033/2023
Crime No.126/2023 for the offences punishable U/s.498A of
IPC and Sec.3 and 4 of DP Act. 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.126/2023 of East Zone 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
3
Crl.Misc.No.8033/2023
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.126/2023 against the petitioner on the basis
of complaint filed by Smt.Mounika, a/a 30 Yrs., who is the wife
of petitioner for the offences punishable U/s.498A of IPC and
Sec.3 and 4 of DP Act.

Admittedly, the petitioner is the
husband of the alleged defacto complainant-Smt.Mounika,
which is not in dispute.
It is the case of the complainant that on 25.08.2013 the
marriage of accused was solemnized with the complainant, and
at the time of marriage on demand he received cash of
Rs.4,80,000/- two wheeler vehicle, and gold articles worth 350
grams as dowry from the parents of complainant, and out of the
wedlock they blessed with two children. Thereafter the accused
without going for any work, by borrowing loan and made the
complainant to stood as surety for the same and in addition to
that
the accused received
Rs.3,00,000/- cash and a two
wheeler from her parents, and without leading proper marital life
subjected her to physical and mental cruelty by demanding
demanding additional dowry and also caused sexual abuse to
the complainant.

Unable to bear the physical and mental
cruelty and sexual abuse 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
4
Crl.Misc.No.8033/2023
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 of IPC and
Sec.3 and 4 of DP Act, the said offences ares 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 East Zone Women P.S., in Crime
No.126/2023 on 24.07.2023 at 12.30 hours for the offences
punishable U/s.498A of IPC and sec.3 and 4 of DP Act. The
petitioner has also produced the copy legal notice etc., 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.Mounika, 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
offence as contended by the complainant is a matter, which has
5
Crl.Misc.No.8033/2023
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
one surety for like sum to the satisfaction of the
concerned I.O.,/Magistrate in the event of his arrest in
6
Crl.Misc.No.8033/2023
the case in Crime No.126/2023 of East Zone Women
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 once in a month i.e., first 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
concerned
Magistrate Court as and when directed,
7.He shall not leave the jurisdiction of the
Bangalore City without prior permission.

7
Crl.Misc.No.8033/2023
8.He shall not change his place of residence
outside the jurisdiction of Bangalore City 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 31st day of August,
2023)
(Manjunatha)
XLV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru.

8
Crl.Misc.No.8033/2023
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,
9
Crl.Misc.No.8033/2023
Bengaluru.