KABC010018282023
IN THE COURT OF XLV ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS
JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY (CCH-46)
DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2023
PRESENT:
Sri. Manjunatha, B.A., LL.B.,
XLV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.
CRL.MISC. No.589/2023
Petitioners
1.Krishnamurthy.G
S/o Sumithra, a/a 24 Yrs.,
2.Smt. Sumithra,
S/o Late Gopalaiah, a/a 42 Yrs.,
Both are r/o Vijayanagara
Extension,
Huliyar-572 218,
Huliyar Hobli,
Chikkanayakanahalli Taluk.
(By Sri/Smt; B.K. Naredra Babu,
Advocate)
AND
Respondent
State by HSR Layout P.S.,
Bengaluru.
(By the learned Public Prosecutor,
Bangalore.)
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
2
Crl.Misc.No.589/2023
release them on bail in the event of their arrest in their Crime
No.306/2022 in the interest of justice.
2. The brief facts of the bail petition is that on the basis of
the information of Smt.K. Kavitha, W/o first petitioner, the case
was registered against the petitioners in PCR No.16231/2022
for the offences punishable U/s.498A, 494, 497, 349, 503, 506
and 120B of IPC. The learned Magistrate acting U/s.156(3) of
Cr.P.C. referred the matter to the respondent police for
investigation and hence, the case is registered against the
petitioners by the respondent police in Crime No.306/2022
against the Petitioners for an offences punishable U/s.498A,
494, 497, 349, 503, 506 and 120B of IPC. The Petitioners
being accused persons apprehending their arrest by the
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 is 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 on both sides, and perused the
materials on record.

3
Crl.Misc.No.589/2023
5. The following points are arises for consideration of this
Court:
1. Whether the Petitioners have made out
sufficient grounds for granting Anticipatory bail
in their favour in Cr. No.306/2022 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:
The documents produced by the
Petitioners discloses that a case was registered by the learned
Magistrate in PCR No.16231/2022 against the petitioners
others on the basis of private complaint filed by Smt.Kavitha,
wife of first petitioner for the offences punishable U/s.498A, 494,
497, 349, 503, 506 and 120B of IPC. The learned Magistrate
referred the matter to the respondent police for investigation
and hence, the case in Crime No.306/2022 was registered
against the petitioners and others for the offences as alleged.
8.It is the case of the complainant that on 10.03.2019 the
marriage
of
accused
No.1
was
solemnized
with
the
complainant, after the marriage complainant came to know that
the accused persons were running prostitution business, the
accused persons forcing her to indulge in the said prostitution
business, and failing which threatened her with life by
4
Crl.Misc.No.589/2023
subjecting her to physical and mental cruelty, unable to bear the
same complainant returned to her parents house. Accordingly,
the complainant has filed the private complaint before the
jurisdictional court, which was referred for investigation to the
respondent police, who registered FIR in Crime No.306/2022
against the petitioners for the offences punishable U/s.498A,
494, 497, 349, 503, 506 and 120B of IPC.
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
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, 494, 497,
349, 503, 506 and 120B of IPC, and the said offences are not
punishable with death or imprisonment for life. The offences
U/s.498A of IPC is though non-bailable, it is exclusively triable
by the Magistrate.

5
Crl.Misc.No.589/2023
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 of complaint and FIR produced by the petitioner
discloses that a case was registered by the learned Magistrate
in PCR No.16231/2022 against the petitioners on the basis of
private complaint filed by Smt.Kavitha, the wife of first petitioner,
for the offences punishable U/s.498A, 494, 497, 349, 503, 506
and 120B of IPC. The learned Magistrate referred the matter to
the respondent police for investigation and hence, the case was
registered against the petitioners for the alleged offences at
HSR Layout P.S., in Crime No.306/2022 on 29.11.2022 at 08.00
hours for the offences as alleged. The documents would
discloses that there is a matrimonial dispute between first
petitioner and the complainant. Admittedly, petitioner No.1 is the
husband and petitioner No.2 is the mother-in-law of the alleged
complainant-Smt.Kavitha, 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.
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
6
Crl.Misc.No.589/2023
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.
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.306/2022
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 give his
7
Crl.Misc.No.589/2023
attendance before the concerned I.O., on first
Sunday of every month in between 10.00 a.m.
and 2.00 p.m. 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
and
shall
not
intimidate
the
complainant.
5.They shall not commit similar offences or any
offences in future.
6.They shall appear before the concerned Magistrate
Court as and when directed.
7.They shall furnish their residential id address
proofs.
(Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer directly on Computer, corrected by me
and then pronounced in open Court on this the 27th day of January, 2023)
(Manjunatha)
XLV Addl. CC & SJ, Bengaluru.

8
Crl.Misc.No.589/2023
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. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru.