IN THE COURT OF LXXI ADDL. CITY CIVIL &
SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY (CCH-72)
DATED THIS THE 27 th DAY OF JANUARY, 2023
PRESENT:
Smt. K.S.JYOTHISHREE, B.Com, L.L.B.
LXXI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru.
CRL.MISC.No.593/2023
Petitioners
1.Ravikumar H.G @
Mohan,
Aged about 38 years,
S/o. Govindaiah,
C/o Hosadodi Govindaiah,
Kadirenahalli New Colony,
BSK 2nd Stage, Bengaluru.
2. Savithramma,
W/o Lakkappa,
Aged about 62 years,
R/at No.85, Hosadoddi,
Bidadi Hobli,
Manchanayakanahalli,
Ramanagar, Bengaluru.
3. Ravikumar,
Aged about 45 years,
S/o Lakkappa,
4. Lakshmi @ Sowbhagya,
Aged about 38 years,
D/o. Govindaiah,
Both the above are R/at
2
Crl.Misc.No.593/2023
No.66, Flat No.302,
Srinidhi Aashitha, 7th
Cross Road,
Chikkalasandra
Ramanajneyanagar,
Bengaluru.
(By Sri. Devaraj.N, Adv.)
AND
Respondent
State of Karnataka
By Govindarajanagar P S,
Bangalore.
(By the learned Public
Prosecutor)
ORDER ON BAIL APPLICATION FILED U/S.438
OF Cr.P.C.
The bail application is filed by the petitioners
under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. praying to grant an order
of anticipatory bail in the event of their arrest in
Crime No.257/2022 for the offences punishable
U/s.494, 506, 498A, 504, 312, 323 r/w 34 of IPC and
Sec.3 & 4 of D.P.Act.
2. The facts are as under:
The complainant is the legally wedded wife of
the petitioner No.1 and their marriage was solemnized
3
on
11.02.2008.

The
Crl.Misc.No.593/2023
petitioners
demanded
and
received 450 gms gold as dowry. The petitioner No.1 is
working as an Executive, he know astrology and used
to travel one country or the other. He has developed
illicit
relationship
with
another
woman.

The
petitioners forced her to get abort on three times.
Ultimately she gave birth to girl child. The petitioners
with common intention, demanded additional dowry,
assaulted with hands, stick and abused in filthy
language. She had taken treatment at K.R.Hospital,
Mysuru. In the year 2016, the petitioner No.1 has
contacted 2nd marriage and totally neglected the
complainant. She has filed a case for maintenance
and the court has ordered the petitioner No.1 to pay
maintenance of Rs.15,000/- per month. In the year
2018, the petitioners again started quarrel with
complainant,
abused
the
complainant
in
filthy
language and threatened with dire consequences.

4
Crl.Misc.No.593/2023
3. Grounds for bail:
1. The petitioners are innocents.
2. The petitioner No.1 has filed M.C.No.2779/
2022 for divorce.
3. The petitioner No.1 has filed G&W
No.259/2015 seeking custody of child.
4. The petitioner No.2 to 6 are nothing to do
with the marital life of the complainant and
the petitioner No.1.
5. She has filed false complaint to harass the
petitioners.
6. The petitioners are ready to abide by the
conditions to be imposed by the court.
With these contentions, they have requested to
allow the application.
4. The learned Public Prosecutor has filed the
objections and re-iterated the complaint averments.
There are prima facie materials against the petitioners
to reject the bail. If the bail application is allowed, the
petitioners may put threat to the complainant. Hence,
prayed for dismissal of the application.
5. Heard.
6. The points that arise for my consideration are:
5
Crl.Misc.No.593/2023
1. Whether the petitioners have made
out sufficient grounds to grant
anticipatory bail ?
2. What order?
7. My answer to the above points are hereunder:
Point No.1:
Point No.2:
In the affirmative
As per final order,
for the following:
R EAS O N S
8. Point No.1: It appears that, since 2015, the
complainant and the petitioner No.1 have been
residing separately. The petitioners have submitted
that the petitioner No.1 has filed G & W No.259/2015
seeking child custody.
9.

The
complainant
has
alleged
that
the
petitioner No.1 has contacted 2 nd marriage and the
petitioners with common intention, treated her with
cruelty,
forcibly
caused
abused and put life threat.

mis-carriage,
assaulted,
6
Crl.Misc.No.593/2023
10. The petitioners have submitted that, the
petitioner
No.1
has
filed
M.C.No.2779/2022
for
divorce. The involvement of petitioners is yet to be
proved. The alleged offences are not punishable with
death or imprisonment for life. They are to be tried
before learned Magistrate. Hence, there is absolutely
no reason to deny benefit of anticipatory bail to the
petitioners at this stage. Consequently, the point No.1
is answered in the affirmative.
11. Point No.2: Hence, I proceed to pass the
following:
ORD ER
The bail application filed by the
petitioners under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. is
hereby allowed.
The respondent police is hereby
directed to release the petitioners in the
event
of
their
arrest
in
Crime
No.257/2022 for the offences punishable
U/s.494, 506, 498A, 504, 312, 323 r/w
34 of IPC and Sec.3 & 4 of D.P.Act,
subject to the following conditions:
7
Crl.Misc.No.593/2023
1. The petitioners shall execute
personal bond for Rs.50,000/each with like sum surety.
2. The petitioners shall not threaten
the
complainant
and
other
witnesses.
(Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer directly on the computer, corrected by me and
then pronounced in open Court on this the 27th day of January, 2023)
(K.S.JYOTHISHREE)
LXXI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge
Bengaluru.