The XLV Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, has granted anticipatory bail to Anirudha Dixit, the petitioner/accused, in connection with Crime No. 98/2022 registered by the Mico Layout Police Station. The case was filed under Sections 498A (Husband or relative of husband subjecting a woman to cruelty) and 506 (Punishment for criminal intimidation) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

The order, pronounced by Judge Sri. Manjunatha on July 1, 2022, found that the offences were not punishable with death or imprisonment for life, and the accused’s presence could be easily secured, thus meeting the criteria for pre-arrest bail.

Case Background

The case was registered based on a complaint filed by Smt. Ritika Sharma, the wife of the petitioner.

Allegations of Cruelty

• The petitioner and the complainant were married on June 12, 2015.
• The complaint alleges that since August 2021, the petitioner became addicted to consuming alcohol and subjected the complainant to physical and mental cruelty through abuse and assault.
• Further, the accused was alleged to be harassing the complainant by having an illicit relationship with other women.
• On April 7, 2022, the accused allegedly assaulted her and threatened her life, also threatening to send mail to her family members and her company.
• Due to the alleged intolerable harassment, the complainant left the matrimonial home on April 26, 2022, and began residing at her sister’s house, eventually leading to the filing of the complaint on May 6, 2022.

Petitioner’s Defense

The petitioner, through his advocate Sri/Smt. Bhanu Ravinder, contended that he was innocent and had been falsely implicated. He argued that since the offences are non-bailable but not punishable with death or life imprisonment, and the dispute is primarily matrimonial, he deserved the protection of anticipatory bail. He also assured the court that he is a permanent resident of the addresses shown and is ready to abide by any conditions imposed.

Court’s Rationale for Granting Bail

The court considered the arguments from both the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor, who had objected strongly on the grounds of potential tampering with witnesses, hampering investigation, and the risk of the petitioner repeating the mental and physical harassment.

The court, however, emphasized the following points in its reasoning:

1. Nature of the Offences: The offences under Sections 498A and 506 of IPC are not punishable with death or imprisonment for life. Section 498A, though non-bailable, is exclusively triable by a Magistrate.
2. Matrimonial Dispute: The court noted that the documents clearly disclose a matrimonial dispute between the petitioner and the complainant, which is a common context for such cases.
3. Securing Presence: The petitioner is the husband of the complainant and is a permanent resident as shown in the cause title, a fact that was not disputed by the prosecution. The court held that this assurance means the presence of the petitioner can be secured easily, ruling out the risk of absconding.
4. Purpose of Custody: The court stated that no purpose would be served by allowing the police to apprehend the petitioner and keep him in custody when he is ready to offer adequate surety and abide by the court’s conditions.
5. Addressing Prosecution Fears: The objections regarding tampering and hampering the investigation raised by the Public Prosecutor can be met by imposing stringent conditions.

Based on these facts, the court found that the petitioner had established sufficient grounds for granting anticipatory bail, as there was a clear apprehension of arrest in a non-bailable offence.

Order and Bail Conditions

The petition under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. was allowed. The petitioner, Anirudha Dixit, was ordered to be released on bail in the event of his arrest in Crime No. 98/2022, subject to the execution of a personal bond for Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Only) with one surety for the like sum, to the satisfaction of the concerned Investigating Officer (I.O.)/Magistrate.

The release is subject to the following conditions:

1. Cooperation and Attendance: The petitioner shall make himself available for interrogation by the I.O. as and when required until the final report is filed. He shall also give attendance before the concerned I.O. once a month (preferably on the first Sunday of every month) between 10:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. until the filing of the charge sheet or further orders.
2. Surrender: The petitioner shall surrender before the concerned Police within 30 days from the date of the order without fail.
3. No Tampering: He 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 I.O., and shall not tamper with prosecution witnesses or intimidate the complainant.
4. No Similar Offences: He shall not commit similar offences or any offences during the pendency of the case.
5. Court Appearance: He shall appear before the concerned Magistrate Court as and when directed.
6. Jurisdiction and Residence: He shall not leave the jurisdiction of the concerned Court without prior permission and shall not change his place of residence outside the jurisdiction without prior intimation.
7. Proof: He shall furnish the notarized copy of his residential ID address proof.