KABC010080302024 IN THE COURT OF XLV ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY (CCH-46) DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF APRIL, 2024 PRESENT: Sri. Manjunatha, B.A., LL.B., XLV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru. CRL. MISC. No.2868/2024 Petitioner Shivakumar Govindaraju S/o M. R. Govindaraju, a/a 44 Yrs., r/a No.44, Krishna Legacy, 14th Cross, RT Nagar, Bengaluru-560 032. (By Sri/Smt; R. Darshan, Adv.,) AND Respondent State by North Women 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 petitioner has filed bail petition U/s.438 of Cr.P.C., to grant anticipatory bail in favour of the petitioner and also direct the respondent police to release him on bail in the event of his arrest in their Crime No.2/2024 in the interest of justice.

2. On the basis of the complaint filed by the

complainant-Smt.Garima, a/a 39 Yrs., who is the wife of Crl.Misc.No.2868/2024 petitioner, the case was registered against the petitioner in Crime No.2/2024 for the offences punishable U/s.498A, of IPC and Sec.3 and 4 of DP Act. Now the petitioner being accused is apprehending his arrest by the respondent police. Hence, the petitioner constrained to file this petition and thereby he has prayed for allowing the petition.

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. Further she has reiterated the contents of complaint and also contended that if petitioner is granted bail at the stage of investigation, then the petitioner shall again involve in causing mental and physical harassment to the complainant. It is also the objection of the prosecution that the petitioner would tamper the prosecution witness and hamper the investigation by not co-operating the respondent police and has prayed for dismissal of the bail petition.

4. Heard the arguments on both sides and perused the

materials on record.

5. The following points are arises for consideration of this

Court:

1. Whether the petitioner has made out sufficient

grounds for granting anticipatory bail in his favour in Cr. No.2/2024 of North Women P. S., at this stage as soughtfor? 2.Whatorder?

6. This court has answered the above points are as

under: Crl.Misc.No.2868/2024 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 case in Crime No.2/2024 against the petitioner on the basis of complaint filed by complainant-Smt.Garima, a/a 39 Yrs., who is the wife of petitioner for the offences punishable U/s.498A of IPC and Sec.3 and 4 of DP Act. It is the case of the complainant that on 30.01.2020 the marriage of accused was solemnized with the complainant, and at the time of marriage on demand the accused received cash of Rs.45,00,000/- and gold articles worth Rs.25,00,000/- as dowry from the parents of complainant, and after the marriage the accused subjected her to physical and mental cruelty in demanding additional dowry by abusing and assaulting her. Unable to bear the physical and mental cruelty caused by the accused persons, complainant constrained to file complaint against the petitioners before respondent police.

8. The contention of petitioner is that he is innocent of the

offences alleged against him and he has not committed any such offence. Per-contra as submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor, the investigation is at the initial stage and it is yet to be completed. Hence, it is not proper to believe or consider that the petitioner is innocent of the alleged offence.

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

argument, it is accepted that there is prima-facie case against Crl.Misc.No.2868/2024 the petitioner for the offences punishable U/s.498A of IPC and Sec.3 and 4 of DP Act, the said offences are not punishable with death or imprisonment for life. The offence U/s.498-A IPC is though non-bailable, it is exclusively triable by the Magistrate. 10.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 of complaint and FIR produced by the petitioner discloses that a complaint has been lodged by the complainant, who is the wife of petitioner at North Women P. S., in Crime No.02/2024 on 15.03.2024 at 2.45 hours for the offences as alleged. On perusal of the documents would disclose that there is a matrimonial dispute between petitioner and the complainant. 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.

11. Whether the petitioner has 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 petitioner is ready to abide by the terms and conditions imposed by the court and when he is ready to offer due and adequate surety for his release on bail, then this court is of the opinion that no purpose will be served by allowing the respondent police to apprehend the petitioner and to keep him in custody. The petitioner is the the permanent resident as shown in the cause title and this fact has not been disputed by the prosecution, as such the presence of petitioner can be secured easily, hence, the question of absconding of the Crl.Misc.No.2868/2024 petitioner 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 petitioner has made out sufficient ground for granting anticipatory bail in his favour at this stage as prayed for as there exist reason to believe that he may be arrested in non- bailable offence. Accordingly, I answer Point No.1 in the affirmative.

12. 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 Petitioner U/s.438 of Cr.P.C. is hereby allowed. The Petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his executing personal bond for Rs.1,00,000/- with one surety for the like sum to the satisfaction of the concerned I.O.,/Magistrate in the event of his arrest in the case in Crime No.02/2024 of North Women P. S., subject to following conditions:- 1.The Petitioner shall make himself available for interrogation by the I.O. as and when required till the final report is filed. Further, he shall assist the I.O. in further investigation of the case. He 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. Crl.Misc.No.2868/2024 2.The Petitioner shall surrender before the concerned Police within 30 days from the date of this order without fail. 3.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.He shall not hamper further investigation of the case and tamper with prosecution witnesses in any manner and shall not intimidate the complainant. 5.He shall not commit similar offences or any offences in future, 6.He shall appear before the concerned Magistrate Court as and when directed. 7.He shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Bengaluru City without prior permission. 8.He shall not change his place of residence outside the jurisdiction of Bengaluru City without prior intimation, and 9.He shall furnish notarized copy of his 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 1st day of April, 2024) (Manjunatha) XLV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru. Digitally signed by MANJUNATH MANJUNATHNAIK RAMA RAMA NAIK Date: 2024.04.10 15:15:47 +0530 Crl.Misc.No.2868/2024 Order pronounced in the open court vide its separate order O R D E R The bail petition filed by the petitioner U/s.438 of Cr.P.C. is hereby allowed. (Manjunatha ) XLV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru. Crl.Misc.No.2868/2024