KABC010018362023
IN THE COURT OF XLV ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS
JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY (CCH-46)
DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF JANUARY, 2023
PRESENT:
Sri. Manjunatha, B.A., LL.B.,
XLV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.
CRL.MISC. No.594/2023
Petitioners
1.Vikram Venkataraman Hegde,
S/o Venkataraman Subraya
Hegde, A/a 39 Yrs.,
R/a No.153, Clarence Street,
Merrylands-2160
State: NSW, Australia.
2.Venkataraman Subraya Hegde,
S.o Subraya Hegde, a/a 74 Yrs.,
3.Smt. Parvathi Venkataraman
Hegde,
W/o Venkataraman Subraya
Hegde, A/a 72 Yrs.,
r/o “Inchara’ 2nd Main, 5th Cross,
Vivekananda nagar, Post Chipgi,
Sirsi, Uttara Kannada District,
Karanataka-581 402.
4.Smt. Chetana Rajendra Hegde,
W/o Rajendra Hegde, a/a 47
Yrs.,
R/a No.1004, nadig Galli,
Sirsi Taluk, Sirsi Market,
Uttara Kannada-581 401.

2
Crl.Misc.No.594/2023
(By Sri/Smt; C. V. Srinivasa,
Advocate)
AND
Respondents
State by Basavanagudi Women
P.S.,
(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 them on bail in the event of their arrest in their Crime
No.372/2022 in the interest of justice.
2. The brief facts of the bail petition is that on the basis of
the information of Smt.V. Deepa W/o first petitioner, the
Respondent
Police
have
registered
a
case
in
Crime
No.372/2022 against the Petitioners for an offences punishable
U/s.498A of IPC and Sec.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 is granted bail then they
again will involve in causing mental and physical harassment to
the Complainant and also chance of destroying the evidence,
3
Crl.Misc.No.594/2023
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:
1. Whether the Petitioners have made out
sufficient grounds for granting Anticipatory bail
in their favour in Cr. No.372/2022 of
Basavanagudi Women 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
Point No. 2
:
:
In the Affirmative
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.372/2022 against the Petitioners for the offences
punishable U/s.498A of IPC and Sec.4 of DP Act on the
Complaint of Smt.Deepa, 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.Deepa, which is not in dispute.
8.It is the case of the complainant that on 21.04.2013
the marriage of accused No.1 was solemnized with the
complainant and at the time of marriage on demand he
received Rs.5,00,000/- and gold articles as dowry from the
father of complainant. After the marriage complainant started to
4
Crl.Misc.No.594/2023
reside along with the family members of accused No.1, at that
time the accused persons subjected her to physical and mental
cruelty by demanding additional dowry, by not allowing her to
talk with her parents. The accused No.2 and 3 are instigating
the accused No.1 not to take care of her. In the 2015 after
attending the cremation of her father, complainant returned to
Singapore, at that time the accused persons forcing her for
abortion, and on 14.4.2016 she gave birth to a male bu the said
child was suffering from Neonatal Sepsis, and got admitted at
Singaore, the accused No.1 by not taking any responsibility
send them to India by forcing her to transfer her parents
property in his name, and in the year 2017 the accused persons
ousted her from the matrimonial house by abusing and
defaming her.

The accused No.1 went to Australia without
intimating the complainant, in the year 2020 complainant lodged
case at Family court, and in the 2019 the accused No.1 in the
matrimonial account sent marriage proposal request to the
colleague of complainant, subjected her to physical and mental
cruelty. Unable to bear the physical and mental cruelty caused
by the accused, 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
5
Crl.Misc.No.594/2023
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 of IPC and
Sec.4 of DP Act, and the said offences are not punishable with
death or imprisonment for life. But the offence U/s.498A and 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 complainantSmt.Deepa, who is the wife of first petitioner, at Basavanagudi
Women P.S., in Crime No.372/2022 on 29.12.2022 at 14.30
hours for an offences punishable U/s.498A of IPC and Sec.4 of
DP Act.

The petitioners have also produced the marriage
invitation, marriage certificate, immigrant status, pension
payment order, medical records, receipts, photographs, bill
document to show change of name, bank statement, legal
notice MC Petition No.37/2022 and MC petition No.4323/2021,
address proofs etc., The documents would disclose that there is
6
Crl.Misc.No.594/2023
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.Deepa, 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
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.

7
Crl.Misc.No.594/2023
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 solvent surety for the surety for like
sum
to
the
satisfaction
of
the
concerned
I.O.,/Magistrate in the event of their arrest in the case
in Crime No.372/2022 of Basavanagudi Women 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.
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.594/2023
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 23rd day of January, 2023)
(Manjunatha)
XLV Addl. CC & SJ, Bengaluru.

9
Crl.Misc.No.594/2023
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.594/2023