KABC010079392024 IN THE COURT OF XLV ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY (CCH-46) DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024 PRESENT: Sri. Manjunatha, B.A., LL.B., XLV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru. CRL.MISC. No.2831/2024 Petitioners 1.Budhanisan, S/o J. Raghuraman, a/a 28 Yrs., 2.Kavitha W/o Shekaran, a/a 45 yrs., 3.Aishwarya.R C/o Arokia Curz, a/a 24 Yrs., r/a No.51, 3rd Cross, D Street, Jai Bharathnagar.M.S., Bengaluru. (By Sri/Smt: V. Venkataramu, Adv.,) AND Respondent State by Banaswadi P. S., Bengaluru City. (By the learned Public Prosecutor) ORDER ON BAIL PETITION FILED U/S.438 OF Cr.P.C., The learned counsel for the Petitioners has filed bail petition U/s.438 of Cr.P.C., to grant anticipatory bail in favour of the Petitioners and also direct the Respondent Police to Crl.Misc.No.2831/2024 release them on bail in the event of their arrest in their Crime No.184/2024 in the interest of justice.

2. The brief facts of the bail petition is that on the basis of

the information of Smt.Teena, a/a 27 Yrs., w/o petitioner No.1, the Respondent Police have registered a case in Crime No.184/2024 against the Petitioners for the offences punishable U/s.498A, 323, 324, 504 and 506 r/w Sec.34 of IPC. The Petitioners being accused apprehending their arrest at the hands of respondent police and constrained to file this petition to grant bail.

3. The learned Public Prosecutor has filed objection in

detail by reiterating the contents of the Complaint and contended that this bail petition is not maintainable in law or on facts of the case since the investigation of the case is in progress. Further, she has reiterated the contents of Complaint and also contended that if Petitioners are granted bail then they again will involve in causing mental and physical harassment to the Complainant and also chance of destroying the evidence, tamper the prosecution witnesses and hamper the investigation. Accordingly, prayed for dismissal of the bail petition.

4. Heard the arguments. Perused the materials on record.

5. The following points are arises for consideration of this

Court: 1.WhetherthePetitionershavemadeoutsufficient grounds for granting Anticipatory bail in their favour in Cr. No.184/2024 of Banaswadi P. S., atthisstageassoughtfor? 2.Whatorder? Crl.Misc.No.2831/2024

6. This court has answered the above points are as

under: PointNo.1 : IntheAffirmative PointNo.2 : Asperfinalorder forthefollowing:- R E A S O N S

7. Point No.1: On considering the papers on record, it is

evident to note that the Respondent Police have registered a Crime No.184/2024 against the Petitioners for the offences punishable U/s.498A, 323, 324, 504 and 506 r/w Sec.34 of IPC, on the complaint of Smt.Teena, a/a 27 Yrs., Admittedly, the petitioner No.1 is the husband and petitioners No.2 and 3 are the relatives of the husband of the alleged complainant- Smt.Teena, which is not in dispute. 8.It is the case of the complainant that the marriage of complainant was solemnized with the accused No.1, the accused No.1 under the influence of alcohol assaulting the complainant every day, the accused No.2 and 3 have also supported to the act of accused No.1, in the January 2024 and 0n 12.03.2024 at 12.00 a.m. in the night the accused No.1 under the influence of alcohol started to assault the complainant with the help of belt, assaulted on her stomach and face, pressed her neck, and kicked to her face, the accused No.2 and 3 have also provoking accused No.1 to assault the complainant, when the mother and brother of enquire, the accused persons by abusing threatened them with life. Unable to bear the physical and mental cruelty caused by the accused persons, Crl.Misc.No.2831/2024 complainant constrained to file complaint against the petitioners before respondent police. 9.The contention of petitioners is that they are innocent of the offences alleged and there is absolutely no case made out against them for the alleged offence. But, as pointed out by the learned Public Prosecutor, investigation is not yet completed, at this stage if the bail is granted in favour of the petitioners, then they may abscond and also tamper the prosecution witnesses and hamper the investigation, and this stage when investigation is under process, this Court cannot come to the conclusion that the petitioners are innocent of the offence alleged against them. Hence, at this stage the contention of petitioners that they are innocent of the offences alleged against them does not stand for consideration. It is not desirable on the part of this Court at this stage to come to the conclusion that the petitioners are innocent of the offences alleged against them.

10. It is pertinent to note that even for the sake of

argument, it is accepted that there is prima-facie case against the Petitioners for the offences punishable U/s.498A, 323, 324, 504 and 506 r/w Sec.34 of IPC, the said offences are not punishable with death or imprisonment for life. But the offence U/s.498A of IPC is though non-bailable, but it is exclusively triable by the Magistrate. 11.It is well settled principle of law that the granting of bail is discretionary power of the Court and every case should be considered on the basis of facts of each case. The certified copies complaint and FIR produced by the petitioners discloses that a complaint has been lodged by the complainant, at Crl.Misc.No.2831/2024 Banaswadi P.S., in Crime No.184/2024 on 14.03.2024 at 11.10 hours for the offences as alleged. The documents would discloses that there is a matrimonial dispute between accused No.1 and the complainant. Admittedly, the petitioner No.1 is the husband and petitioners No.2 and 3 are the relatives of the husband of the alleged complainant – Smt.Teena, against whom the filing of the complaint is sufficient to draw apprehension in the minds of the petitioners regarding their arrest in non-bailable offence. 12.Whether the petitioners have committed the alleged offence as contended by the complainant is a matter, which has to be decided only at the time of full-fledged trial. At this juncture, when the petitioners are ready to abide by the terms and conditions imposed by the court and when they are ready to offer due and adequate surety for their release on bail, then this court is of the opinion that no purpose will be served by allowing the respondent police to apprehend the petitioners and to keep them in custody. The petitioners are the permanent residents as shown in the cause title and this fact has not been disputed by the prosecution, as such the presence of petitioners can be secured easily, hence, the question of absconding of the petitioners does not arise at all. The objections raised by the learned Public Prosecutor can be met by imposing stringent conditions. Absolutely there is no ground made out by the prosecution to reject this bail petition. Hence, under these circumstances, the petitioners have made out sufficient ground for granting anticipatory bail in their favour at this stage as prayed for as there exist reason to believe that they may be Crl.Misc.No.2831/2024 arrested in non-bailable offence. Accordingly, I answer Point No.1 in the affirmative.

13. Point No. 2: In view of answer of this Court on point

No.1, this court pass the following:- O R D E R The bail petition filed by the petitioners U/s.438 of Cr.P.C. is hereby allowed. The petitioners are ordered to be released on bail on their executing personal bond for Rs.1,00,000/- each with two sureties for the like sum to the satisfaction of the concerned I.O.,/Magistrate in the event of their arrest in the case in Crime No.184/2024 of Banaswadi P. S., subject to following conditions:- 1.The Petitioners shall make themselves available for interrogation by the I.O. as and when required till the final report is filed. Further, they shall assist the I.O. in further investigation of the case. Further the petitioner No.1 shall mark his attendance twice in a month, i.e., first and third Sunday of every month in between 10.00 a.m. and 2.00 p.m. before the I.O., till filing of final report or further orders whichever is earlier. 2.The Petitioners shall surrender before the concerned Police within 30 days from the date of this order without fail. 3.They shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to Crl.Misc.No.2831/2024 dissuade him/ her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to the concerned I.O., 4.They shall not hamper further investigation of the case and tamper with prosecution witnesses in any manner and shall not intimidate the complainant. 5.They shall not commit similar offences or any offences during the pendency of case, 6.They shall appear before the concerned Magistrate Court as and when directed. 7.They shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Bangalore City without the prior permission. 8.They shall not change his place of residence outside the jurisdiction of concerned Court without prior intimation. 9.They shall also furnish the notarized copy of their residential id address proof. 10.In the event of violation of any of the above conditions, the above bail shall stand automatically canceled. (Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer directly on Computer, corrected by me and then pronounced in open Court on this the 30th day of March, 2024) (Manjunatha) XLV Addl. CC & SJ, Bengaluru. Digitally signed by MANJUNATH MANJUNATH RAMA NAIK RAMA NAIK Date: 2024.04.04 16:24:01 +0530 Crl.Misc.No.2831/2024 Order pronounced in the open court vide its separate order O R D E R The bail petition filed by the petitioners U/s.438 of Cr.P.C. is hereby allowed. (Manjunatha) XLV Addl. CC & SJ, Bengaluru. Crl.Misc.No.2831/2024