Judge Manjunatha Presides Over Bail Order Crl.Misc. No.6034/2022

In a significant order dated July 1, 2022, the XLV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City (CCH-46), Sri Manjunatha, B. A., LL.B., granted anticipatory bail to an accused husband, Anirudha Dixit, who was apprehending arrest in a case of alleged matrimonial cruelty and criminal intimidation. The case, registered by the Mico Layout Police Station under Crime No. 98/2022, involved serious non-bailable offences under Section 498A and Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

The case highlights the nuanced judicial approach required in matrimonial disputes involving allegations of cruelty, where the court must balance the personal liberty of the accused with the protection of the complainant and the integrity of the ongoing investigation. The petitioner, represented by Sri/Smt. Bhanu Ravinder, Advocate, successfully argued for pre-arrest bail, emphasizing the discretion of the court and the nature of the offences.

Background of the Case

The bail petition, filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.), sought a directive for the respondent police to release Anirudha Dixit on bail immediately upon his arrest. The charges stemmed from a complaint filed by his wife, Smt. Ritika Sharma, the alleged complainant.

According to the complaint, the marriage between the petitioner and the complainant was solemnized on June 12, 2015. The crux of the allegations revolves around events that reportedly began in August 2021, where the accused, Anirudha Dixit, became addicted to alcohol and allegedly subjected his wife to physical and mental cruelty, including abuse and assault. Further accusations included that the accused was having an illicit relationship with another woman, which was a source of harassment. A specific incident was cited on April 7, 2022, where the accused allegedly assaulted and threatened the complainant with her life. The complaint also mentioned a threat to send defamatory emails to the complainant’s family and workplace. Unable to tolerate the harassment, the complainant left the matrimonial home on April 26, 2022, and subsequently lodged the complaint with the Mico Layout Police Station, leading to the registration of Crime No. 98/2022 on May 6, 2022.

Prosecution’s Objections and Court’s Analysis

The learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the bail petition. The prosecution’s objections were detailed, reiterating the contents of the complaint and arguing that the petition was not maintainable. They contended that granting anticipatory bail during the initial stage of the investigation would allow the petitioner to potentially re-involve in causing mental and physical harassment to the complainant. Furthermore, the prosecution expressed a fear that the accused would tamper with prosecution witnesses and hamper the investigation by not cooperating with the police authorities, urging the court to dismiss the petition.

After hearing arguments from both sides and meticulously perusing the materials on record, the court framed the primary point for consideration: “Whether the petitioner has made out sufficient grounds for granting anticipatory bail in his favour in Cr.No.98/2022 of Mico Layout P. S., at this stage as sought for?”

The court noted the existence of a prima-facie case against the petitioner under Sections 498A and 506 of the IPC, acknowledging that the petitioner is indeed the husband of the complainant and that a matrimonial dispute exists. However, the court’s reasoning for granting bail rested on several crucial factors:

First, the court observed that the alleged offences, while serious, were not punishable with death or imprisonment for life. Although Section 498A is a non-bailable offence, it is exclusively triable by a Magistrate. This factor reduced the gravity typically required to deny pre-arrest bail.

Second, the order reiterated the well-settled legal principle that the granting of bail is a discretionary power of the Court, and each case must be decided on its unique facts.

Third, the court took into account the petitioner’s willingness to abide by the terms and conditions that would be imposed, as well as his readiness to offer due and adequate surety for his release. The court opined that no productive purpose would be served by apprehending the petitioner and keeping him in custody, especially when the allegations are still to be proven during a full-fledged trial.

Finally, the court noted that the petitioner’s status as a permanent resident, as shown in the cause title (with addresses in both Lucknow and Bengaluru), was undisputed by the prosecution. This assurance of his presence suggested that the question of the petitioner absconding did not arise and that his presence could be secured easily for the trial. The court concluded that the prosecution’s objections regarding tampering with evidence could be sufficiently met by imposing stringent conditions on the bail.

Order and Stringent Conditions

Having answered the primary point in the affirmative, the court allowed the bail petition under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. The order directed the release of Anirudha Dixit on bail in the event of his arrest in Crime No. 98/2022 of Mico Layout P.S., subject to him executing a personal bond for Rs. 1,00,000/- (One Lakh Rupees) with one surety for a like sum to the satisfaction of the concerned Investigating Officer (I.O.)/Magistrate.

The court imposed a list of nine stringent conditions to ensure the integrity of the investigation and the safety of the complainant, which are fundamental to anticipatory bail in sensitive cases:

1. Availability for Interrogation: The petitioner must make himself available for interrogation by the I.O. as and when required until the final report is filed, and shall assist the I.O. in further investigation. He must 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 must surrender before the concerned Police within 30 days from the date of the order without fail.
3. No Inducement/Threat: 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 to the concerned I.O.
4. No Tampering/Intimidation: He shall not hamper further investigation of the case, tamper with prosecution witnesses in any manner, and shall not intimidate the complainant.
5. No Similar Offences: He shall not commit similar offences or any offences during the pendency of the case.
6. Court Appearance: He shall appear before the concerned Magistrate Court as and when directed.
7. Jurisdiction: He shall not leave the jurisdiction of the concerned Court without its prior permission.
8. Residence: He shall not change his place of residence outside the jurisdiction of the concerned Court without prior intimation.
9. Proof of Address: He shall furnish the notarized copy of his residential ID address proof.

The order was pronounced in open court on July 1, 2022, marking a key development in this matrimonial dispute case by providing temporary protection of liberty to the accused while ensuring compliance and cooperation with the legal process.