A city sessions court in Bengaluru has granted anticipatory bail to Shashi Kumar V and his family members in connection with a potential criminal case arising from a matrimonial dispute. The order was delivered on April 6, 2024, by Sri Manjunatha, the XLV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge. The court ruled that although a formal First Information Report has not yet been registered, the ongoing inquiry into a complaint filed by the petitioner’s wife creates a reasonable apprehension of arrest, justifying judicial protection.
The petitioners include Shashi Kumar V, aged 27, his father K. Venugopal, aged 58, and his mother Smt. Krishnaveni, aged 53, all residents of RBI Colony, Ganganagar. Additionally, Shashi Kumar’s sister Smt. Shanthi V and her husband C. Balaji were also granted protection. The petitioners approached the court seeking relief against potential charges under Section 498A (Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty) and Section 506B (Punishment for criminal intimidation) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, along with Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
Background of the Matrimonial Dispute
The legal proceedings were initiated following a complaint lodged by Smt. K. Sushma, who married the first petitioner, Shashi Kumar V, on September 9, 2021. According to the petition, the marriage suffered from significant matrimonial discord. The petitioners contended that the defacto complainant was threatening to file a false criminal case against the entire family to settle scores regarding their marital differences.
The respondent police, representing the All Women Police Station, North Division, Sanjaynagar, confirmed that while a formal First Information Report (FIR) had not been registered, a complaint was being processed under LPT No. 25/2024. The police had already issued a notice on March 25, 2024, directing the petitioners to appear for an inquiry.
Judicial Reasoning on the Apprehension of Arrest
The prosecution argued that the petition was premature because no First Information Report or Non-Cognizable Report (NCR) had been officially filed. However, the court disagreed, noting that the issuance of a notice for inquiry is sufficient to establish a credible “apprehension of arrest.”
Judge Manjunatha referenced the landmark Supreme Court ruling in Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar (2014), which provides specific guidelines to prevent unnecessary arrests in matrimonial cases. The Supreme Court mandated that police should not arrest an accused automatically under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code without satisfying themselves that such an arrest is necessary to prevent further offences or to ensure proper investigation.
The court also cited the Karnataka High Court’s ruling in the case of Ramappa alias Ramesh vs. State of Karnataka (2021). The High Court held that the apprehension of arrest does not vanish simply because a notice is issued under Section 41A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. If the police collect evidence during the inquiry, they can still proceed to arrest the accused, meaning the threat to personal liberty remains active.
Balance Between Liberty and Investigation
The judge emphasized that the granting of bail is a discretionary power that must balance the sanctity of individual liberty with the interests of society. Quoting the Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre vs. State of Maharashtra case, the court noted that arrest brings great ignominy and humiliation. Since the petitioners are permanent residents of Bengaluru and have no prior criminal record, the court found no reason to deny them protection.
The court observed that Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code is a non-bailable offence but is triable by a Magistrate and does not carry the penalty of death or life imprisonment. By imposing strict conditions, the court ensured that the investigation would not be prejudiced.
Conditions of the Bail Order
The court allowed the petition and directed that in the event of their arrest, the petitioners must be released on bail subject to the following conditions:
- Each petitioner must execute a personal bond for 1,00,000 rupees with one surety of a like sum.
- The petitioners are strictly prohibited from threatening prosecution witnesses or tampering with any evidence.
- They must fully cooperate with the Investigating Officer as and when called for during the probe.
- They must appear before the Investigating Officer within 30 days of the order to complete the necessary bond formalities after interrogation.
The court clarified that this specific bail order would remain in force for a period of three months from the date of the order. This window allows the police to conduct their inquiry while ensuring the petitioners are not subjected to arbitrary detention during the process.