KABC010222662023
IN THE COURT OF XLV ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS
JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY (CCH-46)
DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2023
PRESENT:
Sri. Manjunatha, B.A., LL.B.,
XLV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.
CRL.MISC. No.8058/2023
Petitioners
1.Abhilash.S.B.,
S/o Balakrishna, a/a 34 Yrs.,
2.Smt. Komala.K.N.,
W/o Balakrishna, a/a 60 Yrs.,
3.S. S. Balakrishna,
S/o late S. V. Subba Rao,
a/a 70 Yrs.,
All are r/a No.3, Guru Krupa,
7th Main, 11th Cross, NR Colony,
Bangalore South, Bangalore
Karnataka-560 019.
(By Sri/Smt: Sonia Rajesh, Adv., )
AND
Respondent
State by Vidyaranyapura P. S.,
Bengaluru City.
(By the learned Public Prosecutor)
ORDER ON BAIL PETITION FILED U/S.438 OF Cr.P.C.,
The learned counsel for the Petitioners has filed bail
petition U/s.438 of Cr.P.C., to grant anticipatory bail in favour
2
Crl.Misc.No.8058/2023
of the Petitioners and also direct the Respondent Police to
release them on bail in the event of their arrest in their Crime
No.219/2023 in the interest of justice.
2. The brief facts of the bail petition is that on the basis of
the information of Smt.anagha Raghavan, a/a 29 Yrs., the
Respondent
Police
have
registered
a
case
in
Crime
No.219/2023 against the Petitioners for an offences punishable
U/s.498A, 323, 504, 427 and 506 r/w Sec.34 of IPC. The
Petitioners being accused persons apprehending their arrest at
the hands of respondent police and 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 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 then they
again will involve in causing mental and physical harassment to
the Complainant and also chance of destroying the evidence,
tamper the prosecution witnesses and hamper the investigation.
Accordingly, prayed for dismissal of the bail petition.
4. Heard the arguments. Perused the relevant materials on
record.
5. The following points are arises for consideration of this
Court:
1. Whether the Petitioners have made out sufficient
grounds for granting Anticipatory bail in their
3
Crl.Misc.No.8058/2023
favour in Cr. No.219/2023 of Vidyaranyapura P.
S., at this stage as sought for?
2. What order?
6. This court has answered the above points are as
under:
Point No. 1
:
In the Affirmative
Point No. 2
:
As per final order
for the following:-
REASONS
7. Point No.1: On considering the papers on record, it is
evident to note that the Respondent Police have registered a
Crime No.219/2023 against the Petitioners for the offences
punishable U/s.498A, 323, 504, 427 and 506 r/w Sec.34 of IPC
on the Complaint of Smt.Anagha Raghavan, a/a 29 Yrs.,
Admittedly the petitioner No.1 is the husband and petitioners
No.2 and 3 are the relatives of the husband of the alleged
complainant-Smt.Anagha Raghavan, which is not in dispute.
8.It is the case of the complainant that on 30.08.2018 the
marriage
of
accused
No.1
was
solemnized
with
the
complainant, and out of the wedlock they blessed with a female
child After the marriage, when accused No.1 had been to work
the accused No. 2 and 3 Subjected to physical and mental
cruelty by insulting not to inform their son, accused No.2 forced
the complainant to give her salary by suspecting her that she
has paid the same to her parents, and on 14.01.2023 the
accused No.2 resisting her to visit her parents by abusing in
filthy language, by feeling hurt and disgusting complainant went
to her parents house at 11.00 p.m. The accused No.1 failed to
4
Crl.Misc.No.8058/2023
take care of her and her children, by listening the words of
accused No.2 and 3. She started to reside separately along
with her child, at that time the accused No.1 used to vist her
house, and on 14.8.2023 the accused No.1 picked up quarrel
with her, and destroyed her mobile phone , and caused injuries
to her right hand center finger. Unable to bear the physical and
mental cruelty by abusing and assaulting caused by the
accused persons, complainant constrained to file complaint
against the petitioners before respondent police.
9.The contention of petitioners is that they are innocent of
the offences alleged and there is absolutely no case made out
against them for the alleged offences. But, as pointed out by the
learned Public Prosecutor, investigation is not yet completed, at
this stage if the bail is granted in favour of the petitioners, then
they may abscond and also tamper the prosecution witnesses
and hamper the investigation, and this stage when investigation
is under process, this Court cannot come to the conclusion that
the petitioners are innocent of the offences alleged against
them. Hence, at this stage the contention of petitioners that they
are innocent of the offences alleged against them does not
stand for consideration. It is not desirable on the part of this
Court at this stage to come to the conclusion that the petitioners
are innocent of the offences alleged against them.
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.498A, 323, 504,
427 and 506 r/w sec.34 of IPC, the said offences are not
punishable with death or imprisonment for life. But the offence
5
Crl.Misc.No.8058/2023
U/s.498A of IPC is though non-bailable, 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 complaint and FIR produced by the petitioners discloses
that a complaint has been lodged by the complainant, at
Vidyaranyapura P. S., in Crime No.219/2023 on 8.8.2023 at
10.30 hours for the offences punishable U/s.498A r/w sec.34 of
IPC and Sec.3 and 4 of DP Act. On perusal of the documents,
would disclose that there is a matrimonial dispute between first
petitioner and the complainant. Admittedly, the petitioner No.1
is the husband and petitioners No.2 and 3 are the relatives of
the
husband
of
the
alleged
complainant-Smt.Anagha
Raghavan, a/a 29 yrs., against whom the filing of the complaint
is sufficient to draw apprehension in the minds of the petitioners
regarding their arrest in non-bailable offence.
12.Whether the petitioners have committed the alleged
offences as contended by the complainant is a matter, which
has to be decided only at the time of full-fledged trial. At this
juncture, when the petitioners are ready to abide by the terms
and conditions imposed by the court and when they are ready
to offer due and adequate surety for their release on bail, then
this court is of the opinion that no purpose will be served by
allowing the respondent police to apprehend the petitioners and
to keep them in custody. 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
6
Crl.Misc.No.8058/2023
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. Hence, 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.
13. Point No. 2: In view of answer of this Court on point
No.1, this court pass the following:ORDER
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 the like sum to the
satisfaction of the concerned I.O.,/Magistrate in the
event of their arrest in the case in Crime No.219/2023
of
Vidyaranyapura
P.

S.,
subject
to
following
conditions:1.The Petitioners shall make themselves available for
interrogation by the I.O. as and when required till
the final report is filed. Further, they shall assist
the I.O. in further investigation of the case.
Further the petitioner No.1 shall mark his
attendance once in a month, i.e., first Sunday of
every month in between 10.00 a.m. and 2.00
7
Crl.Misc.No.8058/2023
p.m. before the I.O., till filing of final report or
further orders whichever is earlier.
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,
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 prior permission,
8.They shall not change their place of residence
outside the jurisdiction of Bangalore City without
prior intimation, and
9.They shall furnish the notarized copies of their
residential id address proof.
(Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer directly on Computer, corrected by me
and then pronounced in open Court on this the 26th day of August, 2023)
(Manjunatha)
XLV Addl. CC & SJ, Bengaluru.

8
Crl.Misc.No.8058/2023
Order pronounced in the open court
vide its separate order
ORDER
The bail petition filed by the petitioners
U/s.438 of Cr.P.C. is hereby allowed.
(Manjunatha)
XLV Addl. CC & SJ, Bengaluru.

9
Crl.Misc.No.8058/2023