A city civil and sessions court in Bengaluru has granted anticipatory bail to Dinesh Kumar Jaiswal, a relative of the husband, in a case involving alleged dowry harassment, cruelty, and criminal intimidation. The court, while acknowledging the seriousness of the allegations, found that a prima facie case for the grant of pre-arrest bail was made out, particularly since the offense was not punishable by death or life imprisonment, and the main accused (the husband) had already secured bail.

The order was passed on September 4, 2023, by the XLV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Sri. Manjunatha, allowing the petition filed by Dinesh Kumar Jaiswal, a resident of Agra, Uttar Pradesh, who was named as Accused No. 2 (A2) in the case.

Background of the Complaint

The case, registered as Crime No. 536/2023 at the K.R. Puram Police Station, was lodged based on a complaint filed by Smt. Sonali Badola, aged 43, the wife of Accused No. 1. The charges were registered under Sections 498A (Husband or relative of husband subjecting a woman to cruelty), 323 (Voluntarily causing hurt), and 506 (Criminal intimidation) read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition (DP) Act.

According to the complaint, the matrimonial dispute began with physical and mental cruelty inflicted by the husband (A1). The complainant initially lodged a complaint against A1 with the Kadugodi Police and left for her brother’s house in Dehradun. She was later persuaded to return after the accused and his family members promised better treatment and arranged a separate house in Bhattarahalli, K.R. Puram, Bengaluru.

The cruelty allegedly continued at the new residence from June 10, with the accused and his family members reportedly pressuring her to withdraw the initial complaint and demanding money to purchase a new house. The complaint details further specific incidents of physical assault and neglect, including a dispute on August 1, 2023, where A1 allegedly assaulted her before leaving, and a subsequent incident on August 8 where A1 returned but failed to pay rent or provide household articles.

The petitioner, Dinesh Kumar Jaiswal, is admittedly a relative of the husband, against whom the complaint was filed.

Court’s Consideration and Prosecution’s Objections

The petitioner’s counsel argued that Dinesh Kumar Jaiswal was innocent, falsely implicated, and ready to abide by any conditions the court might impose. Being a permanent resident of Agra, he argued there was no risk of absconding.

The learned Public Prosecutor filed detailed objections, emphasizing the gravity of the offenses, particularly the sustained mental and physical harassment inflicted on the complainant. The prosecution argued that granting bail at the initial stage of investigation would allow the petitioner to continue harassing the complainant, tamper with evidence, and hinder the investigation process. The prosecution strongly requested the dismissal of the anticipatory bail petition.

Grounds for Granting Bail

The court considered the arguments from both sides and analyzed the statutory requirements for granting anticipatory bail under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. The judgment highlighted several key factors in favor of the petitioner:

1. Nature of the Offense: The court noted that while the alleged offences—Sections 498A, 323, 506 IPC and Sections 3 & 4 DP Act—are serious, they are not punishable with death or imprisonment for life. Furthermore, Section 498-A of the IPC, though non-bailable, is exclusively triable by a Magistrate, which typically weighs against absolute denial of bail.

2. Allegations Against the Relative: The court acknowledged that the primary allegations concerning physical assault and house rental issues appear to be directed prima facie against Accused No. 1 (the husband).

3. Co-accused Granted Bail: Crucially, the judgment noted that the main accused, the husband (A1), has already been granted bail. This factor significantly weakened the prosecution’s argument for denying pre-arrest bail to the relative (A2), Dinesh Kumar Jaiswal, whose role appeared secondary in the overall complaint.

4. Securing Presence and Mitigating Risk: The court accepted that the presence of the petitioner, being a permanent resident with a known address, could be easily secured during the trial. The court stated, “The question of absconding of the petitioner does not arise at all.”

The court concluded that no purpose would be served by apprehending the petitioner and keeping him in custody at this juncture, especially when he was ready to cooperate with the investigation and abide by stringent conditions. The objections raised by the prosecution could be adequately addressed through the imposition of such conditions.

Bail Conditions

The court allowed the anticipatory bail petition, ordering Dinesh Kumar Jaiswal to be released on bail in the event of his arrest in Crime No. 536/2023. He must execute a personal bond for Rs. 1,00,000/- with one surety for a like sum to the satisfaction of the concerned Investigating Officer (I.O.) or Magistrate, subject to the following stringent conditions:

• The petitioner must make himself available for interrogation by the I.O. as and when required until the final report is filed and must assist the I.O. in further investigation.
• He shall surrender before the concerned Police within 30 days from the date of the order without fail.
• He is strictly prohibited from directly or indirectly making any inducement, threat, or promise to witnesses or the complainant to dissuade them from disclosing facts.
• He shall not hamper the investigation, tamper with prosecution witnesses, or intimidate the complainant.
• He shall not commit similar or any other offences in the future.

This ruling underscores the principle that the liberty of an individual should not be curtailed merely because a non-bailable offense is registered, particularly when the accused’s role is not central to the primary crime and the severity of punishment is limited.