KABC010229712023
IN THE COURT OF XLV ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS
JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY (CCH-46)
DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2023
PRESENT:
Sri Manjunatha, B.A., L.L.B.,
XLV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.
CRL.MISC. No.8366/2023
Petitioner
Chandrashekar @ Raju
S/o Late Choodegowda,
a/a 45 Yrs.,
R/a No.470, 11th Cross,
Swarnasandra, Mandya City,
Mandya-571 402.
(By Sri/Smt: K. B. Pramod,
Advocate)
AND
Respondent
State by Rajarajeshwarinagar
P.S., Bengaluru.
(By the learned Public
Prosecutor)
ORDER ON BAIL PETITION FILED U/S.438 OF Cr.P.C.
The advocate for the petitioner has filed bail petition
U/s.438 of Cr.P.C., to grant anticipatory bail in favour of the
petitioner and direct the respondent police to release him on
2
Crl.Misc.No.8366/2022
bail in the event of his arrest in their Crime No.327/2023 in the
interest of justice.
2.On the basis of the information of Smt. Shashikala, a/a
57 Yrs., the Respondent Police have registered crime in FIR
No.327/2023 against the petitioner and others for the offence
punishable U/s.306 of IPC.

The Petitioner being accused
apprehending his arrest by the Respondent Police. Therefore,
the Petitioner has constrained to file this petition to grant bail.
3.The petitioner claims innocence and contended that he
has been falsely implicated in the said case and further contend
that he has not committed any offences as alleged in the
complaint. He is ready to abide by any conditions that would be
imposed by this court and prays to allow the petition.
4.Learned Public prosecutor has filed objection to this bail
petition in detail along with the report of I.O., submitting that this
petition is not maintainable in law or on facts and for the
reasons stated in the objection and has prayed for dismissal of
the petition.
5.Heard the arguments of both sides and perused the
materials on record.
6.The points that arises for consideration of this Court are
as under:
1. Whether the petitioner has made out
sufficient grounds for grant of anticipatory
bail in his favour in Crime No.327/2023 of
Rajarajeshwarinagar P.S., at this stage
as prayed for?

3
Crl.Misc.No.8366/2022
2. What order?
7. This Court has answered the above points are as under:
Point No.1 :
In the Negative
Point No.2 :
As per final order
for the following:-
REASONS
8. Point No.1: On considering the papers on record, it is
evident to note that the respondent police have registered case
against the petitioner and others in crime No.327/2023 for the
offence punishable U/s.306 of IPC based on information of Smt.
Shashikala, a/a 57 Yrs., The fact that the complainant/informant
is the mother and the petitioner is the brother-in-law of
deceased-Smt.Sowmyashree, which is not in dispute.
It is alleged in the complaint that on 7.12.2007 the
marriage of daughter of informant by name Smt. Sowmyashree
was solemnized with one Lokesh, and since 2016 they started
to reside at House bearing No.109 situated at 6th Cross,
Krishnappa Layout, Within the limits of Rajarajeshwarinagar
P.S., Bangalore. Further it is the case of the informant that the
accused being the brother of her son-in-law harassing the
complainant and her husband without giving their share in the
house property or their share of money.

The accused also
started to harass the son-in-law and daughter of the informant
with regard to let out a house on lease to some one by the sonin-law of the complainant, and also lodged the complaint before
Mandya P.S., against the son-in-law and daughter of the
informant.

It is also the case of the informant that that the
4
Crl.Misc.No.8366/2022
accused without giving the money nor giving the share of the
property to her the son-in-law, and harassing her daughter and
son-in-law, the daughter of informant by feeling hurt and
disgusting on 21.08.2023 in between 9.30 a.m. and 4.30 p.m.
committed suicide by hanging at her house and left the death
note by stating that the accused is the route cause of her death
as he has harassing her and her husband. It is the case of the
informant that the accused is the route cause for death of his
daughter. Accordingly, complainant has lodged the complaint
before the respondent police against the accused persons.
9. The contention of petitioner is that he is innocent of the
offences alleged and there is absolutely no case made out
against him for the alleged offences. But, as pointed out by the
learned Prosecutor, the respondent police have registered FIR
in Crime No.327/2023 against the petitioner for the offence
punishable U/s.306 of IPC, investigation is not yet completed, at
this stage if the bail is granted in favour of the petitioner, then
he may abscond and also tamper the prosecution witnesses
and hamper the investigation, and this Court cannot come to
the conclusion that the petitioner is innocent of the offences
alleged against him. Hence, at this stage the contention of
petitioner that he is innocent of the offences alleged against him
does not stand for consideration. It is not desirable on the part
of this Court at this stage to come to the conclusion that the
petitioner is innocent of the offences alleged against him.
10.On the basis of arguments of learned counsel for
petitioner and the learned Prosecutor, verified the FIR and
5
Crl.Misc.No.8366/2022
relevant case papers. On perusal of the entire records placed
before the Court prima facie discloses that the petitioner has
caused
the
death
of
deceased-Smt.

Sowmyashree by harassing her and her husband mentally
without giving share in the house property and share of their
money. It is also equally important to note that offence alleged
against the petitioner is punishable U/s.306 of IPC. Sec.306 of
IPC is though not punishable with death, but with imprisonment
of either description for a term which may extend to ten years
and shall also be liable to fine.
11.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. On perusal of the
entire records placed before the Court, prima facie it discloses
that the petitioner/accused has caused the death of deceasedSmt. Sowmyashree by subjecting her to mental cruelty without
giving share in the house property or money, and has
committed
offence against women and society.

In Kalyan
Chandra Sarkar V., Rajesh Ranjan (2004) 7 SCC 528: 2004
SCC (Cri) 1977. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that:While granting bail the Court should exercise its
discretion in a judicial manner and not a matter of
course. It is also necessary for the Court granting bail
to consider
(a) The nature of accusation and the severity of
punishment in case of conviction and the nature of
supporting evidence.

6
Crl.Misc.No.8366/2022
(b) Reasonable apprehension of tampering with the
witness or apprehension of threat to the complainant,
(c) Prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of
the charge, as a dictum of lratio laid down in Ram
Govind Upadhyay V. Sudarshan Singh (2002) 3 SCC
598: 2002 SCC (Cri) 688 that
УGrant of bail though being a discretionary order Ц
but, however, calls for exercise of such a discretion in
a judicious manner and not as a matter of course.
Order for bail bereft of any cogent cannot be
sustained.
In Prasanta Kumar Sarkar V. Ashis Chatterjee; (2010) 14
SCC 496: (AIR 2011 SC 274) has also held that
9….It is trite that this Court does not, normally,
interfere with an order passed by the High Court
granting or rejecting bail to the accused. However, it
is equally incumbent upon the High Court to exercise
its discretion judiciously, cautiously, and strictly in
compliance with the basis principles laid down in a
plethora of decisions of this Court on the point. It is
well settled that, amount other circumstances, the
factors to be borne in mind while considering an
application for bail are:
(i)Whether there is any prima facie or reasonable
ground to believe that the accused committed the
offence;
(ii)nature and gravity of the accusation;
7
Crl.Misc.No.8366/2022
(iii)severity of the punishment in the event of
conviction;
(iv) danger of the accused absconding or fleeing, if
released on bail;
(v)character,
behaviour,
means,
position
and
standing of the accused;
(vi)likelihood of the offence being repeated;
(vii) reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being
influenced;
and
(viii)danger, of course, of justice being thwarted by
grant of bail.
the ratio laid down in the above decision that while
granting or rejecting the bail to the accused it is equally
incumbent upon the Courts to exercise its discretion judiciously,
cautiously and strictly in compliance with the basic principles
laid in a plethora of decisions.
12.In the instant case while applying the ratio laid down
by the Hon’ble Supreme Court with the fact of the case, it is
clear that there appears to be prima facie case made out by the
prosecution that an heinous offence has been alleged to have
been committed by the petitioner. At this juncture it is pertinent
to note that the investigation is not completed and if the
petitioner is granted anticipatory bail, there is chance that he
may hamper the investigation and tamper the prosecution
witnesses. There is reasonable apprehension of tampering with
witnesses and threat to witnesses exists, if the petitioner is
8
Crl.Misc.No.8366/2022
granted anticipatory bail. The custodial interrogation of the
petitioner is necessary for the purpose of investigation. The
contentions put forth by the petitioner in the petition regarding
merits of the case do not arise for consideration of this court at
this stage, as the investigation of the case is in the process.
For the above reasons the petitioner has failed to make out any
ground for granting anticipatory bail in his favour at this stage
as sought for. The petitioner is not entitled for anticipatory bail,
considering the gravity and seriousness of the offence alleged
against him. Accordingly, I answer point No.1 in the Negative.
13. Point No.2: In view of answer of this Court on point
No.1, this court proceed to pass the following:ORDER
The bail petition filed by the petitioner U/s.438
of Cr.P.C., is hereby dismissed.
(Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer directly on Computer,
corrected by me and then pronounced in open Court on this the 8th day of
September, 2023)
(Manjunatha)
XLV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru.

9
Crl.Misc.No.8366/2022
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 dismissed.

(Manjunatha)
XLV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru.