Crl.Misc.No.3089/2024 KABC010087192024 IN THE COURT OF XLV ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY (CCH-46) DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF APRIL, 2024 PRESENT: Sri Manjunatha, B. A., LL.B., XLV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru. CRL.MISC. No.3089/2024 Petitioner Smt. Ranjitha @ Ranjitha Bai W/o r. Balachandra, a/a 38 Yrs., r/a No.55, Opp. Berrys School, Shivanapalya Road, Kengeri Satellite Town, Bangalore-560 060. (By Sri/Smt; G. N. Krishnegowda, Advocate) AND Respondent State by Govindarajanagara P. S., Bengaluru. (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 Crl.Misc.No.3089/2024 her on bail in the event of her arrest in Crime No.91/2024 in the interest of justice.
2. On perusal of the bail petition reveals that on the
complaint of Smt.Deepulatha, a/a 38 Yrs., the respondent police have registered case in Crime No.91/2024 against the petitioner and another for the offences punishable U/s.323, 324, 354, 504 and 509 r/w Sec.34 of IPC. The petitioner being accused No.2 apprehending her arrest by the respondent police. Therefore, the petitioner has 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. Further contended that if petitioner is granted bail then she again involve in causing harassment to the complainant and also chance of destroying the evidence by tampering the witnesses. Accordingly, prayed for rejection of bail petition.
4. Heard the arguments on both sides and perused the
materials on record.
5. The following points that arises for consideration of this
Court: 1.Whether the petitioner has made out sufficient grounds for granting anticipatory bail in her Crl.Misc.No.3089/2024 favour in Cr. No.91/2024 of Govindarajanagar P.S.,atthisstageassoughtfor? 2.Whatorder?
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 perusal of the documents, placed
before the Court, it reveals that based on the complaint that has been lodged by the complainant-Smt.Deepulatha, a/a 38 yrs., respondent police have registered case against the petitioner and another in Crime No.91/2024 for the offences punishable U/ s.323, 324, 354, 504 and 509 r/w Sec.34 of IPC. It is the case of the complainant that there was civil dispute in between her and petitiners, and on 6.3.2024 at 11.00 p.m. while complainant talking with the tenants with regard to financial matters, the accused No.2 by abusing picked up quarrel with her, when she questioned the same the accused No.1 and 2 by holding her hairs and clothes dragged her by assaulting outraging her modesty in publicAccordingly, complainant has filed complaint against the accused persons before respondent police. Crl.Misc.No.3089/2024
8. The contention of petitioner is that she is innocent of
the offences alleged against her and she has not committed any such offences, as alleged in the complaint. On the contrary the prosecution has submitted unless a full-fledged trial is complete, the accused/petitioner cannot be considered as innocent at this point of time.
9. It is pertinent to note that even for the sake of
argument, it is accepted that there is prima facie case against the petitioner for the offences U/s.323, 324, 354, 504 and 509 r/ w Sec.34 of IPC, even though the offences are not punishable with death or imprisonment for life. The offence U/s.354 of IPC is though non-bailable, but 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 FIR and complaint produced by the petitioner discloses that there was apprehension on of her arrest by the respondent police for the alleged non-bailable offence. Though the offences are non-bailable, but not punishable with death or imprisonment for life. The dispute in between the parties is appears to be civil in nature. The entire fact has to be gathered only after full fledged trial. But at this juncture, it is clear that there is an apprehension that the petitioner might be arrested in non-bailable offences for interrogation by the respondent Crl.Misc.No.3089/2024 police for enquiry. It is pertinent to note that the interrogation of the accused/petitioner is not at all required for the alleged offences as shown in the FIR. By considering all the above facts and arguments canvased by prosecution it is found that if stringent conditions are imposed on the appearance of the petitioner/accused before the I.O.,/Court the purpose of prosecution objection that petitioner/accused would not appear for enquiry before I.O., and trial before Court would be met with. At this juncture, it is equally important to note that when the petitioner is ready to abide by the terms and conditions imposed by the court and when ready to face the trial by offering adequate surety, this court is satisfied and is of the opinion that no purpose will be served by allowing the respondent police to apprehend the petitioner for interrogation. 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 petitioner does not arise at all. The objections raised by the learned Public Prosecutor can be met by imposing stringent conditions. There is absolutely no ground made out by the prosecution to reject this bail petition. Accordingly, under these circumstances, the petitioner has made out sufficient ground for granting anticipatory bail in her favour at this stage as prayed for as there exist reason to Crl.Misc.No.3089/2024 believe that she may be arrested in non-bailable offences. Accordingly, I answer Point No.1 in the affirmative.
11. 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 her executing personal bond for Rs.1,00,000/- with one surety for like sum to the satisfaction of the concerned I.O.,/Magistrate in the event of her arrest in the case in Crime No.91/2024 of Govindarajanagar P.S., subject to following conditions: 1.The Petitioner shall make herself available for interrogation by the I.O. as and when required till the final report is filed. Further, she shall assist the I.O. in further investigation of the case. 2.The Petitioner shall surrender before the concerned Police within 30 days from the date of this order without fail. 3.She 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., Crl.Misc.No.3089/2024 4.She shall not hamper further investigation of the case and tamper with prosecution witnesses in any manner and shall not intimidate the complainant. 5.She shall not commit similar offences or any offences during the pendency of case, 6.She shall appear before the concerned Court as and when directed. 7.She shall not leave the jurisdiction of Karnataka State without prior permission. 8.She shall not change her place of residence outside the jurisdiction of Karnataka State prior intimation, and 9.She shall furnish notarized copy of her 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 6th day of April, 2024) (Manjunatha) XLV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru. Digitally signed by MANJUNATH MANJUNATHNAIK RAMA RAMA NAIK Date: 2024.04.25 16:28:21 +0530 Crl.Misc.No.3089/2024 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.3089/2024