KABC010090042024
IN THE COURT OF XLV ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS
JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY (CCH-46)
DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF APRIL, 2024
PRESENT:
Sri. Manjunatha, B.A., LL.B.,
XLV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.
CRL.MISC. No.3195/2024
Petitioners
1.T. Stalin,
S/o s. Thomas, a/a 26 Yrs.,
2.S. Thomas,
S/o Samson, a/a 56 Yrs.,
3.Mary Anitha
W/o Thomas.s, a/a 56 Yrs.,
All are r/a no.1200, I Floor,
I Stage, 10th Cross,
Near Kanaka Bhavan, Chandra
Layout, Bengaluru-560 040.
(By Sri/Smt: H. V.
Chandrashekar, Adv.,)
AND
Respondent
State by Basavanagudi Women
P. S., Bengaluru City.
(By the learned Public
Prosecutor)
2
Crl.Misc.No.3195/2024
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 an order of 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 any case
to be registered on the complaint of Smt.L. Lavanya, in the
interest of justice.
2. On the basis of complaint from Smt.Lavanya, wife of
first petitioner the respondent police may register case against
the petitioners herein for the offences punishable U/s.498A of
IPC and Sec.3 and 4 of DP Act. Therefore, the petitioners are
apprehending arrest by the hands of respondent police. Hence,
the petitioners are constrained to file this petition and thereby
they have prayed for allowing the petition.
3. The learned Public Prosecutor filed objection to this
petition by submitting that
there is no NCR/FIR registered
against the petitioners regarding any criminal case by the
respondent police and therefore, there is no question of
granting anticipatory bail to the petitioners. Hence, the learned
Public Prosecutor has prayed for dismissal of the petition.
4. Heard the arguments on both sides and perused the
materials on record.
5.The points that arises for consideration of this Court are
as under:
1.Whether the petitioners have made out
sufficient ground for granting anticipatory
bail in their favour at this stage as sought
for?

3
Crl.Misc.No.3195/2024
2.What order?
6.This court has answered the above points are as under:
Point No.1: partly in the Affirmative
Point No.2: As per final order
for the following:REASONS
7. Point No.1:Although the petition averments clearly go
to show that there is apprehension on the part of petitioners that
they will be arrested by the respondent Police if any case is
registered against them on the complaint of Smt.Lavanya, but
there is no documents to show that there is apprehension of
arrest of petitioners by the respondent police.
8.

Generally the registration of criminal case is not a
condition precedent for availing benefit of anticipatory bail by
the concerned petitioners/accused persons, but the petitioners
have to produce sufficient materials to show that even though
there is no FIR is registered against them at this stage there is
an apprehension that a case as alleged offences U/s.498A of
IPC and Sec.3 and 4 of DP Act, will be registered by the
respondent police, causing apprehension of their arrest. As per
the averments of the petition, it is alleged that on 13.06.2021
the marriage of defacto complainant was solemnized with
petitioner No.1. It is the averments of the petition that as there
was a matrimonial dispute, due to which the defacto
complainant may file complaint before the respondent police
station against petitioners.

The defacto complainant due to
matrimonial dispute threatening to lodge a false case against
them. In the instant case it is true that yet no case is registered
4
Crl.Misc.No.3195/2024
against the petitioners by the respondent Police, but the defacto
complainant has filed complaint against the petitioners before
respondent police and notice has been issued to the petitioner
No.1 and defacto complainant, and the same is pending for
enquiry.
9.It is also important to note that before taking action
regarding the arrest of the petitioners, the respondent police
have to follow the guidelines laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court ruling reported in (2014) 8 SCC 273(Arnesh Kumar Vs.,
State of Bihar and another, in which the Hon’ble Supreme Court
has clearly laid down the dictum of law and guidance to the
police officials that
“they shall not arrest the accused unnecessarily
without proper counseling and only on satisfaction
that the persons have committed the offence the
police officials to prevent such persons further in
committing any offence or for proper investigation of
the case, or prevent the accused from causing the
evidence of the offence of to disappear or tamper with
such evidence in any manner, or to prevent such
person from making any inducement, threat or
promise to a witness, so as to dissuade him from
disclosing such facts to the Court or the police officer,
or unless the accused person is arrested, if present in
the court whenever required cannot be ensured. It is
also clearly laid down that before arrest the first police
officer should have reason to believe on basis of
information and materials that the accused has
5
Crl.Misc.No.3195/2024
committed the offence.

Apart from this the police
officer has to be satisfied further that the arrest is
necessary for one or more purposes envisaged by
sub-clauses (a) to (e) of clause 1 of Sec.41 Cr.P.C.,
In all cases were arrest of the persons is not required
U/s.41(1) Cr.P.C., police officer is required to issue
notice directing the accused to appear before him at a
specified time and place. The law obliges such an
accused to appear before police officers and if
mandates that if such an accused complies with terms
of notice, he shall not be arrested, unless for reasons
to be recorded, police officer is of the opinion that the
arrest is necessary”.
By applying the above dictum of law to the facts of the
present case, it is found that in the instant case complaint has
been lodged and notice has been issued by the respondent
police regarding the conciliation U/s.498A of IPC in according
to the guidelines laid down in the above case by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India.
At this juncture I would like to quote ruling of Hon’ble High
Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench, reported in Criminal
Petition No.101022/2021 dated 22.06.2021 (Ramappa @
Ramesh Vs., State of Karnataka)
Wherein the Hon’ble High
Court at Para 25 has held that
Section 41A of the Cr.P.C., defers the arrest until
and unless sufficient evidence is collected, so as to
produce or forward the accused to the custody of the
court.

The apprehension of arrest, thus, does not
6
Crl.Misc.No.3195/2024
completely vanish away on the issuance of notice of
appearance under Section 41A of the Cr.P.C., and
hence, the question being raised in maintainability of
an application under Sec.438 of Cr.P.C., during the
pendency of notice being issued under Sec.41A
Cr.P.C., or during the compliance of the terms of such
notice is completely unwarranted and is not in tune
with the provisions of law. The apprehension of arrest
always does exist even after issue of notice of
appearance under Section 41 Cr.P.C., and under
such circumstances the Courts cannot evade to
entertain an application under Sec.438 Cr.P.C.,
10.It is well settled principle of law that the granting of
bail, is discretionary power of the Court has to be exercised
consciously and with due care, so that no blanket order is
passed and every case should be considered on the basis of
facts of each case. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India have
clearly held that blanket Order of Anticipatory Bail should not be
generally passed unless specific event and facts is discloses
by the applicant in order to enable the Court to arrive at judicial
conclusion.
At this juncture I would like to quote the dictum of law laid
down in the decision reported in (2011) 1 Supreme Court cases
694 (Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre Vs., State of Maharashtra
and others) wherein the 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
7
Crl.Misc.No.3195/2024
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
balance between two conflicting interests viz., sanctity
or individual liberty and interest of society”.
11.The principle laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court
it is crystal clear that mere apprehension of arrest by the Police
is sufficient to invoke the provision of Sec.438 of Cr.P.C. for
grant of anticipatory bail. The apprehension of arrest always
does exist even after issue of notice of appearance U/s.41
Cr.P.C., by respondent police station, and under such
circumstances this Court cannot evade to entertain an
application under Sec.438 Cr.P.C., Even for the sake of
argument, if it is accepted that the case that would be
registered against the petitioners for the alleged non bailable
offence Sec.498A of IPC, the same would be triable by the
Magistrate if not punishable death or imprisonment for life.
12. Further, the materials on record show that there exist
a matrimonial dispute. The fact that the defacto complainant
has lodged a complaint against the petitioners before the
respondent police and notice has been issued to the petitioner
No.1 and defacto complainant by instructing them to appear
before the Parihar_Vanitha Sahayavani, for counseling on
8.4.2024 at 12.30 p.m.

On perusal of these documents, it is
8
Crl.Misc.No.3195/2024
clear that there is a matrimonial dispute between the defacto
complainant and petitioner No.1, which is sufficient to inspire
the Court that there exists apprehension of arrest of the
petitioners by the respondent police for the alleged offences as
contended in the petition.

At this juncture the court cannot
ascertain the allegations and dispute between the parties
unless the full fledge trial is completed, but the documents
produced by the petitioners is sufficient to prove that the
defacto complainant has filed the complaint against the
petitioners for the alleged offence punishable U/s.498A of IPC
and Sec.3 and 4 of DP Act, and the same is pending for
enquiry.
13.At this stage, the dictum of law and guidelines laid
down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Gurbaksh Singh
Sibbia V., State of Punjab, (1980) 2 SCC 565: 1980 SCC (Cri)
465 has to be taken into consideration while granting
anticipatory bail. In the said ruling the Hon’ble Supreme Court
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 undergone
imprisonment on conviction by a Court in respect of
any cognizable offence, and the possibility of the
applicant to flee from justice is also to be considered.

9
Crl.Misc.No.3195/2024
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.
Further the Hon’ble Supreme Court has clearly laid
down 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, 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. It is also held
held that while considering the objections of the
prosecution, the court has to consider reasonable
apprehension of tampering
of the witness or
apprehension of threat to the complainant at time of
granting
anticipatory
bail
and
the
frivolity
in
prosecution should also be taken into consideration.
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
10
Crl.Misc.No.3195/2024
apprehension of arrest is sought, in relation to a
specific incident”.
14.By applying the above principles and considering the
fact of the case it is found that absolutely no serious ground
made out by the respondent police to reject this petition since
the petitioners have produced documents to show that there is
complaint pending enquiry before respondent police station,
which has been filed by defacto complainant- Smt.Lavanya, on
imposing stringent conditions regarding the availability of the
petitioners for investigation, the objections of the prosecution
would be met with when the petitioners have produced
document to show that they are the permanent residents of
Bangalore, ready to abide the conditions imposed by the Court
by furnishing valid surety. Hence, in the circumstances, the
petitioners have made out sufficient grounds for granting
anticipatory bail in their favour at this stage as prayed.
Accordingly, I answer Point No.1 in the partly 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.Cs., is hereby allowed.
In the event of arrest of the petitioners by the
respondent police on the basis of the complaint to
be lodged by Smt.Lavanya for the offences as
alleged in the petition U/s.498A of IPC and Sec.3
and 4 of DP Act, the concerned Investigating
Officer of respondent police station shall release
11
Crl.Misc.No.3195/2024
the petitioners on bail on their executing personal
bond for the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- each with a
surety for the like sum to his satisfaction, subject
to the following conditions that:
1. The petitioners shall not threaten the
prosecution witnesses and tamper with
prosecution evidence in any manner,
2.They shall co-operate with the I.O., of
respondent
police
station
in
the
investigation of the case as and when
called for.
3. They shall appear before the IO of
respondent police station within 30 days
from the date of this order. If the
petitioner so appear before the IO, the IO
shall, after interrogation, release him on
bail after obtaining necessary bonds as
directed supra.
It is made clear that this bail order shall be in
force for the period of three months from
the date of this order.
(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 April, 2024)
(Manjunatha)
XLV Addl. CC & SJ, Bengaluru.
MANJUNATH
RAMA NAIK
Digitally signed by
MANJUNATH RAMA
NAIK
Date: 2024.04.25
17:12:46 +0530
12
Crl.Misc.No.3195/2024
Order pronounced in the open court
vide its separate order
ORDER
The bail petition filed by the petitioners
U/s.438 of Cr.P.Cs., is hereby allowed.

(Manjunatha)
XLV Addl. CC & SJ, Bengaluru.

13
Crl.Misc.No.3195/2024