KABC010017302023
IN THE COURT OF XLV ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS
JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY (CCH-46)
DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2023
PRESENT:
Sri Manjunatha, B.A., LL.B.,
XLV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.
CRL.MISC. No.548/2023
Petitioners
1.Raja.K.J.,
S/o Jowaragowda, a/a 45 Yrs.,
2.Smt. Savithramma
W/o Raja.K.J., a/a 36 Yrs.,
Both are r/a No.5, 8th Coss,
Sanjivininagar, Moodalapalya,
Nagarabhavi, Bangalore-72.
(By Sri/Smt; A. R. Raghunandan,
Advocate)
AND
Respondent
State by Govindarajanagar 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 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
2
Crl.Misc.No.548/2023
them on bail in the event of their arrest in their Crime
No.6/2023 in the interest of justice.
2. On the basis of the information of Sri Mahadeva, a/a
55 Yrs., the Respondent Police have registered crime in FIR
No.6/2023 against the Petitioners and another for an offences
punishable U/s.498A and 304B r/w Sec.34 of IPC and Sec.3
and 4 of DP Act. The Petitioners being accused No.2 and 3 as
per the FIR apprehending their arrest by the hands of
Respondent Police. Therefore, the Petitioners have constrained
to file this petition to grant bail.
3.The petitioners claims innocence and contended that
they have been falsely implicated in the said case and further
contended that they have not committed any offences as
alleged in the complaint. They are ready to abide by any
conditions that would be imposed by this court therefore the
petitioners have prayed for allowing this petition.
4.The Learned Public prosecutor has filed objection to
this bail petition in detail along with report of I.O., by submitting
that this petition is not maintainable in law or on facts and for
the reasons stated in the objection she has prayed for dismissal
of the petition.
5.Heard the arguments of both the sides and perused the
materials on record.
6.The points that arises for consideration of this Court are
as under:
1.Whether the petitioners have made out
sufficient grounds for granting anticipatory bail
in their favour in Cr.No.6/2023 of
3
Crl.Misc.No.548/2023
Govindarajanagar P.S., at this stage as sought
for?
2. What order?
7.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
8. Point No.1: On considering the papers on record, it is
evident to note that the respondent police have registered case
against the petitioners for the offences punishable U/s.498A and
304B r/w Sec.34 of IPC and Sec.3 and 4 of DP Act based on
the complaint of Sri Mahadeva, a/a 55 Yrs., The fact that the
complainant is the father of deceased-Smt. Ramya, which is not
in dispute.
It is alleged in the complaint that on 12.06.2022 the
marriage of accused No.1 was solemnized with the daughter of
of complainant by name Smt. Ramya. After the marriage the
deceased-Smt.Ramya started to reside with accused No.1 at
Pattegarapalya, was working in garments. The accused No.1
working as Office Boy in the Office of Sub-Registrar.

The
accused No.1 at the instigation of accused No.2 and 3,
subjected her to physical and mental cruelty in demanding
Rs.5,00,000/- from her parents house, as he intends to let out a
house on lease and used to quarrel with her for petty reasons.
under the influence of alcohol by abusing and assaulting her
and failed to take care of her. The accused No.1 continued to
arise even after the advise in demanding Rs.5,00,000/- from her
parents, they console her as they don’t have money, but the
4
Crl.Misc.No.548/2023
accused No.1 continued to harass her. On 10.1.2023 at 10.15
p.m. the neighbors of their daughter called the son of
complainant and intimated that Smt. Ramya was not opening
the door. Immediately complainant and his son went near the
house found locking the house from the inside, by that time
Hoysala police and accused No.1 came to the spot, they break
open the door and found that Smt. Ramya committed suicide by
hanging It is the case of the complainant that the cause of
death of his daughter deceased-Smt.Ramya was due to the
abetment of the accused No.1 to 3 who subjected her to
physical and mental cruelty in demanding Rs.5,00,000/- by
abusing and assaulting her.

Accordingly, complainant has
lodged the complaint before the respondent police against the
accused persons.
9. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that there is
no intention or motive specifically attributed to the petitioners,
only on suspicious ground the petitioners were implicated.
The petitioners hails from a respectable family having deep
roots in the society. Further submits that the petitioners do not
have any criminal antecedents. Hence, they prayed to allow this
petition.
10. As against this the Learned Public Prosecutor filed
detailed objections and during the course of her arguments
submitted that the investigation is still in progress and if they
granted anticipatory bail at this stage there is every chance of
petitioners to abscond from the jurisdiction of this court,
intimidate the complainant and witnesses and tamper the
5
Crl.Misc.No.548/2023
evidence. Hence she submits that the petitioners are not
entitled to be released on bail.
11.On the basis of arguments of learned counsel for
petitioners and the learned Prosecutor, verified the FIR,
complaint and relevant case papers.

The offences alleged
against the petitioners is punishable U/s.498A and 304B r/w
Sec.34 of IPC and Sec.3 and 4 of DP Act. The offence
U/s.304B of IPC, which is though not punishable with death or
imprisonment for life, but imprisonment for not less than 7
years, but which may extend to imprisonment for life.
12.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.
In (2011) 1 Supreme Court cases 694 (Siddharam
Satlingappa Mhetre Vs., State of Maharashtra and others)
Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that :-
“Sec.438 of Cr,P.C, is not extraordinary in
the
sense
that
it
should
be invoked
only
exceptional or rare cases – A great ignominy,
humiliation and disgrace is attached to arrest –
In cases where Court is of considered view that
accused has joined investigation and he is fully
co-operating with the investigating agency and is
not likely to abscond, in that event, custodial
interrogation should be avoided, and anticipatory
bail should be granted – exercise of said
jurisdiction
requires
maintaining
of
perfect
6
Crl.Misc.No.548/2023
balance between two conflicting interests viz.,
sanctity or individual liberty and interest of
society.”
Further Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Gurbaksh
Singh Sibbia V., State of Punjab, (1980) 2 SCC 565: 1980
SCC (Cri) 465 has held that:” What is the quantum of punishment is not
much important on the other hand, the Courts
ought to consider such nature and gravity of the
accusation and the exact role of the accused
must be properly comprehended before arrest is
made. Further the antecedents of the applicant
including the fact as to whether the accused has
previously
conviction
undergone
by
a
Court
imprisonment
in
respect
of
on
any
cognizable offence, and the possibility of the
applicant to flee from justice is also to be
considered. The
possibility of the accused’s
likelihood to repeat similar or other offences and
where the accusations have been made only with
the object of injuring or humiliating the applicant
by arrest him or her has to be looked into. It is
equally important to note that impact of grant of
anticipatory bail particularly in cases of large
magnitude affecting a very large number of
people has to be taken into consideration. The
Hon’ble Supreme Court has clearly laid down
7
Crl.Misc.No.548/2023
caution that the Courts must evaluate the entire
available material against the accused very
carefully and while considering the prayer for
grant of anticipatory bail.

While granting the
anticipatory bail the balance has to be struck
between two factors, namely, no prejudice should
be caused to the free, fair and full investigation
and there should be prevention of harassment,
humiliation
and unjustified
detention
of
the
accused. While considering the objections of the
prosecution,
the
court
has
to
reasonable apprehension of tampering
witness
or
apprehension
of
threat
consider
of the
to
the
complainant at time of granting anticipatory bail.
Further the frivolity in prosecution should always
be considered while granting anticipatory bail.
Also order of anticipatory bail should not be
“blanket” in the sense that it should not enable
the accused to commit further offences and claim
relief. It should be confined to the offence or
incident, for which apprehension of arrest is
sought, in relation to a specific incident ”.
13.The certified copies of complaint and FIR produced by
the petitioners discloses that a complaint has been lodged by
the
complainant,
who
is
the
father
of
deceased
at
Govindarajanagar P.S., in Crime No.6/2023 on 11.01.2023 at
00.30 hours for an offences punishable U/s.498A and 304B r/w
8
Crl.Misc.No.548/2023
Sec.34 of IPC and Sec.3 and 4 of DP Act. The documents
would disclose that there was a matrimonial dispute between
accused No.1 and the deceased. Admittedly, the petitioners are
the relatives of the husband of the deceased-Smt.Ramya,
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. Keeping in mind, the allegations
of the complainant and other aspects, this anticipatory bail
petition has to be considered. The entire allegations is made
out in the complaint is only against accused No.1.

The
allegations made against petitioners are not specific, whether
the petitioners in committing the alleged offences with common
intention is a matter to be tried and decided in due course. Bail
cannot be refused merely on the ground that the petitioners
were the relatives of accused No.1 when the alleged offences
are committed.
14.Whether the petitioners have committed the 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. As per the materials on record, it is clear that
the petitioners are the residents of Bangalore, and there is no
chance of fleeing away from the trial of the case. The objections
9
Crl.Misc.No.548/2023
raised by the learned Public Prosecutor can be met by imposing
stringent conditions. There is absolutely no any special ground
made out by the prosecution to reject the bail petition of
petitioners. 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.
15. 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 two sureties for like sum to the satisfaction
of the concerned I.O.,/Magistrate in the event of her
arrest
in
the
case
in
Crime
No.6/2023
of
Govindarajanagar 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.
2.The
Petitioners
shall
surrender
before
the
concerned Police within 30 days from the date of
this order without fail.

10
Crl.Misc.No.548/2023
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 in future.
6.They shall appear before the concerned Magistrate
Court as and when directed.
7.They shall not leave the jurisdiction of Bangalore
City without prior permission,
8.They shall not change their place of residence
outside the jurisdiction of Bangalore City without
prior intimation, and
9. The petitioners shall furnish notarized copies of
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 24th day of January, 2022)
(Manjunatha)
XLV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru.

11
Crl.Misc.No.548/2023
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 ACC & SJ, Bengaluru.