KABC010083562024 IN THE COURT OF XLV ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY (CCH-46) DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF APRIL, 2024 PRESENT: Sri. Manjunatha, B.A., LL.B., XLV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru. CRL.MISC. No.2955/2024 Petitioners 1.Syed Arif ws/o Chand B I, a/a 35 Yrs., r/a No.28, 5th Cross, Mysore Road, New Guddadahalli, Neharu Road, Pipe Line Road, Bangalore-560 026. 2.Smt. Arshiya W/o Syed Akhil, a/a 29 Yrs., r/a No.20, 6th Main Road, Shamanna Nagar, Bangalore-560 026. 3.Smt. Nazeema W/o Javeed pasha, a/a 32 Yrs., r/a No.939, Arundathinagar, Gangondanahalli, Chandra Layout, Bangalore-560 072. 4.Smt. Shanaz W/o Musheer Ahmed, a/a 28 Yrs., r/a No.928, 6th Cross, Gangondanahalli, Bangalore-560 039. 2 Crl.Misc.No.2955/2024 5.Smt. Farhana Banu, W/o Arif Pasha, a/a 30 Yrs., r/a No.9/2, 11th Cross, Hosahalli Main Road, Padarayanapura, Bangalore-560 026. (By Sri/Smt; J A Dastagir, Adv.,) AND Respondent State by Jagajeevanramnagar P. S., Bengaluru. (By the learned Public Prosecutor) ORDER ON BAIL PETITION FILED U/S.438 OF Cr.P.C., The learned counsel for 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 release them on bail in the event of their arrest in their Crime No.43/2024 in the interest of justice.

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

complaint of complainant-Smt. Nagina Taj, a/a 42 Yrs., the Respondent Police have registered case against the Petitioners in Crime No.43/2024 for the offences punishable U/ s.323, 354, 504 and 506 r/w Sec.34 of IPC. The Petitioners being accused persons apprehending their arrest by the Respondent Police and constrained to file this petition to grant bail and thereby they have 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 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 there is 3 Crl.Misc.No.2955/2024 chance of destroying the evidence, tamper the prosecution witnesses and hamper the investigation. Accordingly, prayed for rejection of bail petition.

4. Heard the arguments on both sides. Perused the

relevant 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.43/2024 of Jagajeevanramnagar P. S., at this stage as soughtfor? 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 considering the papers on record, it is

evident to note that the Respondent Police have registered a case against the Petitioners in Crime No.43/2024 for the offences punishable U/s.324,354, 504 and 506 r/w Sec.34 of IPC, on the Complaint of complainant-Smt. Nagina Taj, a/a 42 Yrs., 8.It is the case of the complainant that the marriage of her son was solemnized with Ambar, thereafter due to matrimonial dispute, they separated, since then the daughter-in-law of 4 Crl.Misc.No.2955/2024 complainant was residing with her parents, and the panchayaths were went in vain, the settlement has been taken place in the office of Baba. As per the settlement daughter in- law of complainant and her family members visited the house of complainanant on 10.03.2024 at about 10.15 p.m. to take back her belongings given at the time of marriage, at that time the accused persons have quarreled with the complainant by abusing threatened her with life by outraging her modesty. Accordingly, complainant has filed complaint against the accused persons before respondent police. 9.The contention of petitioners is that they are innocent of the offences alleged against them and they have not committed any such offences. On the contrary the prosecution has submitted unless a full-fledged trial is complete, the accused/petitioners cannot be considered as innocent at this point of time.

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.323, 354, 504 and 506 r/w Sec.34 of IPC, even though the said 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. 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 of FIR and complaint produced by the petitioners discloses that there was apprehension of their arrest by the 5 Crl.Misc.No.2955/2024 respondent police for the alleged non-bailable offence. Though the offences are non-bailable, but not punishable with death or imprisonment for life. 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 petitioners might be arrested in non-bailable offences for interrogation by the respondent police for enquiry. It is pertinent to note that the interrogation of the accused/petitioners is not at all required for the alleged offences as shown in the FIR. On perusal of the documents produced by the petitioners prima facie it discloses that the petitioner No.5 had lodged a complaint against the defacto complainant and others before respondent police, based on the said complaint the respondent police have registered case in Crime No.42/2024 for the offences punishable U/s.323, 354, 504 and 506 r/w Sec.34 of IPC. It is the contention of the petitioners that to counterblast to the said case the present case has been registered against them by the defacto complainant before the respondent police. 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 petitioners/accused persons before the I.O.,/Court the purpose of prosecution objection that petitioners/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 petitioners are 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 6 Crl.Misc.No.2955/2024 respondent police to apprehend the petitioners for interrogation. 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 grounds made out by the prosecution to reject this bail petition. Accordingly, 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 arrested in non-bailable offences. 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 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 one surety for like sum to the satisfaction of the concerned I.O.,/Magistrate in the event of their arrest in the case in Crime No.43/2024 of Jagajeevanramnagar P. S., subject to following conditions:- 1.The Petitioners shall make themselves available for interrogation by the I.O. as and 7 Crl.Misc.No.2955/2024 when required till the final report is filed. Further, they shall assist the I.O. in further investigation of the case. 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 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, and 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 their place of residence outside the jurisdiction of concerned Court without prior intimation. 9.They shall furnish their residential id address proofs. 8 Crl.Misc.No.2955/2024 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 3rd day of April, 2024) (Manjunatha) XLV Addl. CC & SJ, Bengaluru. Digitally signed by MANJUNATH MANJUNATH RAMA NAIK RAMA NAIK Date: 2024.04.10 16:16:17 +0530 9 Crl.Misc.No.2955/2024 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.