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 in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 2868/2024 on April 1, 2024. The judicial order extended pre-arrest bail protection to 44-year-old Shivakumar Govindaraju in connection with Crime No. 2/2024 registered by the North Women Police Station, Bengaluru City. The petitioner faced apprehension of arrest for alleged offences punishable under Section 498A (husband or relative of husband subjecting woman to cruelty) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition (DP) Act, 1961.

Factual Matrix and Prosecution Allegations

The criminal proceedings originated from a formal complaint lodged by Smt. Garima, aged 39 years, who is the wife of the petitioner.

• Marriage and Dowry Allegations: According to the complainant, her marriage to the petitioner was solemnized on January 30, 2020. At the time of the marriage, the accused allegedly demanded and received a cash amount of ₹45,00,000/- along with gold articles valued at ₹25,00,000/- as dowry from the complainant’s parents.
• Alleged Harassment: The complainant alleged that following the marriage, the petitioner subjected her to continuous physical and mental cruelty by making demands for additional dowry, abusing, and assaulting her, ultimately constraining her to lodge a police complaint.

The details of the petitioner as per court records are:

• Shivakumar Govindaraju (Petitioner / Accused): Aged about 44 years, son of M.R. Govindaraju, residing at No. 44, Krishna Legacy, 14th Cross, RT Nagar, Bengaluru – 560032.
• Legal Representation: Sri/Smt. R. Darshan, Advocate

Submissions Advanced by the Parties

On Behalf of the Petitioner

1. False Implication: The defense maintained that the petitioner was entirely innocent of the allegations, that the dispute stemmed from matrimonial friction, and that the criminal complaint was a fabricated measure.
2. Readiness to Cooperate: Counsel submitted that the petitioner is a permanent resident of RT Nagar, Bengaluru, with deep local roots, and is fully prepared to abide by any stringent conditions imposed by the court and cooperate with ongoing investigative procedures.

On Behalf of the Respondent (State)

1. Initial Stage of Investigation: The learned Public Prosecutor strongly opposed the petition, filing detailed written objections arguing that the investigation was at a nascent stage and that custodial interrogation or probing was necessary.
2. Apprehension of Interference: The state contended that enlarging the petitioner on anticipatory bail could lead to the recurrence of physical or mental harassment against the complainant, tampering with prosecution witnesses, or hampering the investigation.

Judicial Findings and Legal Reasoning

Upon evaluating the complaint, FIR, and rival arguments, Judge Manjunatha addressed the point for consideration regarding pre-arrest relief under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.):

• Nature of Offences and Triability: The court observed that even accepting the prima facie allegations under Section 498A IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the DP Act, the offences are not punishable with death or imprisonment for life, and the primary offence under Section 498A IPC is exclusively triable by a Magistrate.
• Matrimonial Context: The court noted that the dispute is fundamentally matrimonial in nature, and the registration of a non-bailable crime naturally generated a well-founded apprehension of arrest.
• No Necessity for Custodial Detention: Given that the petitioner is a permanent resident of Bengaluru whose presence can easily be secured, the court held that keeping him in custody would serve no useful purpose. The prosecution’s apprehensions regarding witness tampering or non-cooperation could be adequately safeguarded by imposing strict conditions.

Final Pre-Arrest Bail Order and Conditions Imposed

Answering Point No. 1 in the affirmative, the Sessions Court allowed the bail petition filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. and directed that in the event of his arrest in Crime No. 2/2024 of North Women Police Station, Shivakumar Govindaraju shall be released on bail upon executing a personal bond of ₹1,00,000/- with one surety for the like sum to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer or Magistrate, subject to the following conditions:

1. Surrender Timeline: The petitioner shall surrender before the concerned police station within 30 days from the date of the order.
2. Investigative Availability: He shall make himself available for interrogation by the Investigating Officer as and when required until the final report is filed and assist in the further investigation.
3. Mandatory Attendance: He shall mark his attendance before the Investigating Officer twice a month—on the first and third Sunday of every month between 10:00 AM and 2:00 PM—until filing of the final report or further orders.
4. No Witness Tampering: He shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat, or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case to dissuade them from disclosing facts to the court or police, and shall not intimidate the complainant.
5. Non-Recidivism: He shall not commit similar offences or any other offences in the future.
6. Court Attendance: He shall appear before the concerned Magistrate Court as and when directed.
7. Jurisdictional Limits & Residence: He shall not leave the jurisdiction of Bengaluru City without prior permission and shall not change his residential address outside Bengaluru City without prior intimation.
8. Identification Proof: He shall furnish a notarized copy of his residential ID and address proof.

Note: Violation of any of the above conditions shall render the bail automatically cancelled.