In a case involving allegations of matrimonial cruelty, cheating, and dowry demands, the XLV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City, Sri. Manjunatha, granted anticipatory bail to a husband and his mother. The order, pronounced on January 23, 2023, favored the petitioners, Arunkumar K. (husband/Accused No. 1) and Smt. Ammu (mother-in-law/Accused No. 2), in connection with Crime No. 9/2023 registered at the Begur Police Station.
The petition, filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.), sought protection against the imminent arrest of the petitioners for offenses punishable under Section 498A (Cruelty by Husband or Relatives) and Section 420 (Cheating) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), along with Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition (DP) Act.
The Allegations and Apprehension of Arrest
The case originated from a complaint lodged by Smt. Agees Marina, the wife of the first petitioner, on January 11, 2023. The complainant alleged that her marriage to Arunkumar K. was solemnized on January 27, 2021. Post-marriage, she claimed that Arunkumar K. subjected her to physical and mental cruelty, particularly by refusing to have a physical relationship with her due to an alleged illicit relationship with another woman at his workplace.
Furthermore, the complaint detailed allegations of dowry harassment, stating that both the husband and mother-in-law demanded additional dowry, specifically a bike and gold articles, from her parents. She claimed that the husband had married her by cheating, as he failed to disclose his existing illicit relationship prior to the wedding. Unable to bear the alleged physical and mental cruelty, she filed the complaint, leading to the registration of the non-bailable offenses.
The petitioners, represented by Sri/Smt. H.E. Basavaraj, Advocate, approached the Court apprehending their arrest by the respondent police, maintaining that they were innocent and had been falsely implicated, arguing that no prima facie case was made out against them.
The Prosecution’s Objections and Court’s Rationale
The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail petition vehemently, arguing that the investigation was in progress, and granting bail at this stage could lead to the petitioners absconding, destroying evidence, tampering with prosecution witnesses, and potentially continuing to cause mental and physical harassment to the complainant.
The Court acknowledged the severity of the allegations and the fact that an investigation was underway, stating that it would be premature to definitively conclude the petitioners’ innocence at this stage. However, the Judge meticulously considered the nature of the offenses and the legal principles governing anticipatory bail.
Crucially, the order noted that the offenses under Section 498A and Section 420 of the IPC, though non-bailable, are exclusively triable by a Magistrate. Additionally, the Court observed that these offenses are not punishable with death or imprisonment for life, a factor that often weighs in favor of granting liberty, provided appropriate safeguards are in place.
The Court found the existence of a matrimonial dispute between the parties to be undeniable, a fact supported by the production of certified copies of the complaint and FIR, as well as evidence of a previous, time-bound anticipatory bail order granted to the petitioners in Crl. Misc. No. 1069/2022. The mere filing of a complaint for non-bailable offenses against family members was deemed sufficient to substantiate the petitioners’ genuine apprehension of arrest.
Emphasizing the well-settled principle that bail is a discretionary power exercised on the facts of each case, the Judge ruled that “no purpose will be served by allowing the respondent police to apprehend the petitioners and to keep them in custody” when they are prepared to comply with stringent conditions. Given that the petitioners are permanent residents of Bengaluru, their presence can be easily secured, mitigating the prosecution’s fear of them absconding.
Stringent Conditions for Release
Answering Point No. 1 in the affirmative, the Court allowed the bail petition. The petitioners were ordered to be released on bail upon their executing a personal bond for ₹1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh) each, along with one solvent surety for the like sum, to the satisfaction of the concerned Investigating Officer (I.O.)/Magistrate.
The release is subject to the following stringent conditions, designed to protect the integrity of the investigation and the complainant:
- Surrender and Cooperation: The petitioners must surrender before the concerned Police within 30 days from the date of the order and make themselves available for interrogation by the I.O. as and when required until the final report is filed.
- Mandatory Attendance (Husband): Petitioner No. 1 (Arunkumar K.) must give his attendance before the concerned I.O. on the first Sunday of every month between 10:00 a.m. and 2:00 p.m. until the filing of the final report or further orders.
- No Tampering/Intimidation: They shall not directly or indirectly induce, threaten, or promise any person acquainted with the facts of the case, nor shall they hamper the investigation, tamper with prosecution witnesses, or intimidate the complainant.
- No Similar Offenses: They shall not commit similar or any other offenses during the pendency of the case.
- Jurisdiction and Residence: They shall not leave the jurisdiction of Bangalore City without prior permission and must intimate the court of any change in their place of residence outside the Bangalore City jurisdiction.
- Court Appearances: They shall appear before the concerned Magistrate Court as and when directed.
- Address Proof: They shall furnish notarized copies of their residential ID address proof.