The Court of the XLV Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City (CCH-46), presided over by Sri Manjunatha, B.A., LL.B., delivered a judicial order on April 5, 2024, partly allowing a petition filed under Section 439(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.). The ruling in Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 3041/2024 granted a modification and relaxation of travel restrictions for Smt. M. Lalitha, who had previously been enlarged on anticipatory bail in connection with Crime No. 9/2024 registered by the Adugodi Police Station, Bengaluru. The underlying criminal case involves allegations punishable under Sections 498A (husband or relative of husband subjecting woman to cruelty) and 312 (causing miscarriage) read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), along with Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition (DP) Act.
The legal proceedings arose after the Sessions Court initially granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner vide Crl. Misc. No. 411/2024 on January 24, 2024. As part of that pre-arrest bail order, the court had imposed standard restrictive conditions, specifically Condition No. 7, which mandated that the petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of Bengaluru City without prior permission of the court.
Seeking a modification of this restriction, the petitioner approached the court through her counsel, stating that she is employed as an HR Specialist at Accenture Private Limited in Bengaluru since October 2022. She submitted an urgent corporate requirement to travel to New Jersey, USA, to attend official business meetings scheduled between April 10, 2024, and April 22, 2024. The petitioner pleaded that strict adherence to Condition No. 7 without relaxation would cause irreparable professional loss and injury.
The application for condition relaxation was strongly opposed by the learned Public Prosecutor, who filed formal written objections arguing that the petitioner was strictly bound to comply with all terms imposed during her bail grant. The state contended that relaxing territorial restrictions could create a risk of the accused absconding and might cause hurdles in the smooth progression or trial of the case.
Upon evaluating the petition, documents, and rival arguments, Judge Manjunatha framed the points for consideration regarding the modification of bail terms under Section 439(1)(b) Cr.P.C. The court observed that while maintaining judicial oversight is essential, legitimate professional travel commitments supported by corporate documentation warrant a practical adjustment, provided the interests of the prosecution are adequately safeguarded. The court noted that the apprehensions raised by the state could be effectively met by modifying the travel restriction on the condition that the petitioner remains reachable and responsive to any official notices or summons.
Consequently, the Sessions Court answered the point for consideration partly in the affirmative and allowed the petition filed under Section 439(1)(b) Cr.P.C. The court ordered that Condition No. 7 imposed in Crl. Misc. No. 411/2024 be completely relaxed to enable the petitioner’s business travel, subject to the explicit directive that she shall appear before the Investigating Officer or jurisdictional magistrate whenever required upon the receipt of any notice or summons without fail. All other remaining conditions stipulated in the original anticipatory bail order dated January 24, 2024, remain in full force and effect.