The Court of the XLV Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City (CCH-46), presided over by Sri Manjunatha, B.A., LL.B., allowed the anticipatory bail application filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) in Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 2858/2024 on March 30, 2024. The judicial order extended pre-arrest bail protection to Shantharaju (Petitioner No. 1 / Accused No. 1), Nagaraju (Petitioner No. 2 / Accused No. 2), Jagadish (Petitioner No. 3 / Accused No. 3), and Hanumanthappa (Petitioner No. 4 / Accused No. 4) in connection with Crime No. 76/2024 registered by the Rajarajeshwarinagar Police Station, Bengaluru. The petitioners faced apprehension of arrest for alleged offences punishable under Sections 323 (voluntarily causing hurt), 354 (assault or criminal force to woman with intent to outrage her modesty), 504 (intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace), 506 (criminal intimidation), and 509 (word, gesture or act intended to insult the modesty of a woman) read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

Factual Background and Prosecution Allegations

The criminal proceedings originated from a complaint lodged by Smt. Gangamma, aged 62 years, at the Rajarajeshwarinagar Police Station. According to the prosecution records, the incident occurred on March 7, 2024, at approximately 7:20 AM on the occasion of Maha Shivaratri.

The complainant stated that while she and her husband were cleaning the premises of the Sri Munibettadeshwara Temple situated at Channasandra, the accused persons arrived at the spot and picked up a verbal quarrel. The complainant alleged that the accused assaulted and dragged her, physically attacked her husband, hurled abusive language, issued criminal life threats, and outraged her modesty. Following the complaint, the police registered Crime No. 76/2024 under Sections 323, 354, 504, 506, and 509 read with Section 34 IPC.

The details of the petitioners as per court records are:

• Shantharaju (Petitioner No. 1 / Accused No. 1): Aged about 54 years, son of late Poojappa, residing at Channasandra Village, Subramanyapura Post, Bengaluru South Taluk, Bengaluru – 560061.
• Nagaraju (Petitioner No. 2 / Accused No. 2): Aged about 60 years, son of late Poojappa, residing at the same address.
• Jagadish (Petitioner No. 3 / Accused No. 3): Aged about 43 years, son of P. Hanumanthaiah, residing at the same address.
• Hanumanthappa (Petitioner No. 4 / Accused No. 4): Aged about 70 years, son of late Poojappa, residing at the same address.

Arguments Advanced on Behalf of the Petitioners

Appearing on behalf of the applicants, learned advocate Sri B.B. Sagar presented several grounds seeking pre-arrest protection under Section 438 Cr.P.C.:

• Claim of Innocence: The petitioners maintained that they were entirely innocent of the alleged offences, had not committed any unlawful acts, and were falsely implicated owing to local local disputes.
• Non-Capital Offences: The defense emphasized that the alleged offences, including Section 354 IPC, are triable by a Magistrate of the First Class and do not carry mandatory sentences of death or life imprisonment.
• Local Roots & Undertaking: All petitioners are permanent residents of Channasandra Village in Bengaluru South Taluk with deep community ties and no prior criminal history. They assured the court of their readiness to abide by all conditions, cooperate with the investigation, and furnish solvent sureties.

Prosecution Objections and State Arguments

The Public Prosecutor strongly opposed the grant of anticipatory bail by submitting a formal statement of objections:

• Nature of Accusations: The state argued that the complaint disclosed prima facie allegations of physical assault and outraging the modesty of a woman during a public dispute at a temple premises.
• Apprehension of Interference: The prosecution expressed concern that granting pre-arrest protection to the accused might lead to tampering with prosecution evidence, intimidating witnesses, or hampering the ongoing police investigation.

Judicial Findings and Detailed Legal Reasoning

The Sessions Court evaluated the complaint, FIR records, statutory provisions, and rival submissions to determine whether the petitioners made out sufficient grounds for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C.

1. Statutory Classification and Magistrate Trial

Judge Manjunatha observed that while Section 354 IPC is a non-bailable offence, it is exclusively triable by a Magistrate and does not carry mandatory penalties of death or life imprisonment. The court noted that the veracity of the allegations requires full-fledged trial determination.

2. Custodial Interrogation and Investigation Need

The court held that custodial interrogation of the petitioners was not warranted for the nature of offences alleged in the FIR. The court emphasized that the presence of the accused for inquiry and trial can be effectively secured through stringent reporting conditions.

3. Balancing Liberty with Investigation Safeguards

Holding that the petitioners are permanent residents of Bengaluru whose presence is readily securable, the court resolved the point for consideration in the affirmative, concluding that the prosecution’s concerns could be addressed via specific operational directives.

Final Pre-Arrest Bail Order and Conditions Imposed

Answering the point for consideration in the affirmative, the XLV Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge Sri Manjunatha allowed the petition filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. and passed the following order:

The bail petition filed by the petitioners under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. is hereby allowed. The petitioners are ordered to be released on bail in the event of their arrest in Crime No. 76/2024 of Rajarajeshwarinagar Police Station, upon executing a personal bond for ₹1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) each with one surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the concerned Investigating Officer or Magistrate, subject to the following conditions:

1. The petitioners shall make themselves available for interrogation by the Investigating Officer as and when required until the final report is filed and assist in further investigation.
2. The petitioners shall surrender before the concerned police within 30 days from the date of the order without fail.
3. The petitioners 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 them from disclosing facts to the court or Investigating Officer.
4. The petitioners shall not hamper further investigation, tamper with prosecution witnesses, or intimidate the complainant.
5. The petitioners shall not commit similar offences or any offences during the pendency of the case.
6. The petitioners shall appear before the concerned Magistrate Court as and when directed.
7. The petitioners shall not leave the jurisdiction of Bangalore City without prior permission.
8. The petitioners shall not change their place of residence outside the jurisdiction of the concerned court without prior intimation.
9. The petitioners shall furnish their residential ID and address proofs.

Note: In the event of violation of any of the above conditions, the bail shall stand automatically canceled.