KABC010215962023
IN THE COURT OF XLV ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS
JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY (CCH-46)
DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2023
PRESENT:
Sri. Manjunatha, B.A., LL.B.,
XLV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.
CRL.MISC. No.7801/2023
Petitioners
1.Darshan
S/o Puttaswamy, a/a 35 yrs.,
R/a No.276, 5th Cross,
MS Ramaiah Layout, Nagawara,
Bangalore-560 077.
2.Smt. Radha
W/o Puttaswamy, a/a 56 yrs.,
3.Puttaswamy
S/o late Srikantachar, a/a 67 Yrs.,
4.P. Vinod
S/o Puttaswamy, a/a 29 Yrs.,
All are r/a No.52, 7th Ward,
KRC Main Road, Gundlupet,
Chamarajanagar District.
(By Sri/Smt: B. Rudrachar, Adv., )
AND
Respondent
State by HSR Layout P. S.,
Bengaluru City.
(By the learned Public Prosecutor)
2
Crl.Misc.No.7801/2023
ORDER ON BAIL PETITION FILED U/S.438 OF Cr.P.C.,
The learned counsel for the Petitioners has filed bail
petition U/s.438 of Cr.P.C., to grant anticipatory bail in favour
of the Petitioners and also direct the Respondent Police to
release them on bail in the event of their arrest in their Crime
No.337/2023 in the interest of justice.
2. The brief facts of the bail petition is that on the basis of
the information of Smt.Shruthi, a/a 32 yrs., W/o first petitioner,
the Respondent Police have registered a case in Crime
No.337/2023 against the Petitioners for an offences punishable
U/s.498A of IPC and Sec.3 and 4 of DP Act. The Petitioners
being accused persons apprehending their arrest at the hands
of respondent police and constrained to file this petition to grant
bail.
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 since the investigation of the case is in
progress. Further, she has reiterated the contents of Complaint
and also contended that if Petitioners are granted bail then they
again will involve in causing mental and physical harassment to
the Complainant and also chance of destroying the evidence,
tamper the prosecution witnesses and hamper the investigation.
Accordingly, prayed for dismissal of the bail petition.
4. Heard the arguments. Perused the relevant materials on
record.
5. The following points are arises for consideration of this
Court:
3
Crl.Misc.No.7801/2023
1. Whether the Petitioners have made out sufficient
grounds for granting Anticipatory bail in their
favour in Cr. No.337/2023 of HSR 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
Crime No.337/2023 against the Petitioners for the offences
punishable U/s.498A of IPC and Sec.3 and 4 of DP Act on the
Complaint of Smt.Shruthi, a/a 32 Yrs., who is the W/o first
petitioner.

Admittedly the petitioner No.1 is the husband and
petitioners No.2 to 4 are the relatives of the husband of the
alleged complainant-Smt.Shruthi, which is not in dispute.
8.It is the case of the complainant that on 19.11.2008 the
marriage
of
accused
No.1
was
solemnized
with
the
complainant, and at the time of marriage the accused persons
on demand received gold articles as dowry from the parents of
complainant, out of the wedlock they blessed with a child. After
the marriage the accused No.1 at the instigation of accused
No.2 to 4 subjected her to physical and mental cruelty by
demanding additional dowry in terms of site and car, she and
her father by raising a loan on 2.10.2019 get a car to accused
4
Crl.Misc.No.7801/2023
No.1, she was paying EMI on every month, even though when
she was pregnant the accused No.1 assaulted her. Further the
accused No.1 harassing the complainant to bring money to
purchase site by his family members and received cash of Rs.
6,00,000/- from her parents by way of cash and on 3.2.2022
jointly purchased a site, till August 2022 she has repaid the EMI
of the loan amount of site and on 11.07.2022 mother of
complainant was expired, since then his father was residing
with her at HSR Layout, Bangalore, and after lapse of three
months the accused No.1 picked up quarrel with the
complainant with regard to child, and on 2.8.2022 at 11.00 a.m.
the accused by abusing assaulted her, dragged her, by holding
her hairs banged her head to tepoy, caused bleeding injuries,
kicked with legs, her father has provided treatment to her and
on 13.08.2023 the accused persons by quarreling with her and
her father by assaulting ousted them. The accused No.1 over
phone threatened complainant with life in demanding divorce.
Unable to bear the physical and mental cruelty caused by the
accused persons, complainant constrained to file complaint
against the petitioners before respondent police.
9.The contention of petitioners is that they are innocent of
the offences alleged and there is absolutely no case made out
against them for the alleged offences. But, as pointed out by the
learned Public Prosecutor, investigation is not yet completed, at
this stage if the bail is granted in favour of the petitioners, then
they may abscond and also tamper the prosecution witnesses
and hamper the investigation, and this stage when investigation
is under process, this Court cannot come to the conclusion that
5
Crl.Misc.No.7801/2023
the petitioners are innocent of the offences alleged against
them. Hence, at this stage the contention of petitioners that they
are innocent of the offences alleged against them 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 petitioners
are innocent of the offences alleged against them.
10. It is pertinent to note that even for the sake of
argument, it is accepted that there is prima-facie case against
the Petitioners for the offences punishable U/s.498A of IPC,
and Sec.3 and 4 of DP Act, the said offences are not
punishable with death or imprisonment for life. But the offence
U/s.498A of IPC is though non-bailable, it is exclusively triable
by the Magistrate.
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. The certified
copies complaint and FIR produced by the petitioners discloses
that a complaint has been lodged by the complainant, who is
the wife of first petitioner, at HSR Layout P. S., in Crime
No.337/2023 on 4.8.2023 at 15.00 hours for the offences
punishable U/s.498A of IPC and Sec.3 and 4 of DP Act. The
petitioners have also produced the copies of MC Petition
No.2478, rental agreement and copies of adhaar cards etc., On
perusal of the documents, would disclose that there is a
matrimonial
dispute
between
first
petitioner
and
the
complainant. Admittedly, the petitioner No.1 is the husband and
petitioners No.2 to 4 are the relatives of the husband of the
alleged complainant-Smt.Shruthi, against whom the filing of the
6
Crl.Misc.No.7801/2023
complaint is sufficient to draw apprehension in the minds of the
petitioners regarding their arrest in non-bailable offence.
12.Whether the petitioners have 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 petitioners are ready to abide by the terms
and conditions imposed by the court and when they are ready
to offer due and adequate surety for their release on bail, then
this court is of the opinion that no purpose will be served by
allowing the respondent police to apprehend the petitioners and
to keep them in custody. The petitioners are the permanent
residents as shown in the cause title and this fact has not been
disputed by the prosecution, as such the presence of petitioners
can be secured easily, hence, the question of absconding of the
petitioners does not arise at all. The objections raised by the
learned Public Prosecutor can be met by imposing stringent
conditions. Absolutely there is no grounds made out by the
prosecution to reject this bail petition. Hence, under these
circumstances, the petitioners have made out sufficient ground
for granting anticipatory bail in their favour at this stage as
prayed for as there exist reason to believe that they may be
arrested in non-bailable offences. Accordingly, I answer Point
No.1 in the affirmative.
13. 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 petitioners U/s.438
of Cr.P.C. is hereby allowed.

7
Crl.Misc.No.7801/2023
The petitioners are ordered to be released on bail
on their executing personal bond for Rs.1,00,000/each with one surety for the like sum to the
satisfaction of the concerned I.O.,/Magistrate in the
event of their arrest in the case in Crime No.337/2023
of HSR Layout P. S., subject to following conditions:1.The Petitioners shall make themselves available for
interrogation by the I.O. as and when required till
the final report is filed. Further, they shall assist
the I.O. in further investigation of the case.
Further the petitioner No.1 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
Petitioners
shall
surrender
before
the
concerned Police within 30 days from the date of
this order without fail.
3.They 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.They shall not hamper further investigation of the
case and tamper with prosecution witnesses in
any
manner
complainant.

and
shall not
intimidate
the
8
Crl.Misc.No.7801/2023
5.They shall not commit similar offences or any
offences during the pendency of case,
6.They shall appear before the concerned Magistrate
Court as and when directed.
7.They shall furnish the notarized copies of their
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 19th day of August, 2023)
(Manjunatha)
XLV Addl. CC & SJ, Bengaluru.

9
Crl.Misc.No.7801/2023
Order pronounced in the open court
vide its separate order
ORDER
The bail petition filed by the petitioners
U/s.438 of Cr.P.C. is hereby allowed.
(Manjunatha)
XLV Addl. CC & SJ, Bengaluru.

10
Crl.Misc.No.7801/2023