KABC010162222022
IN THE COURT OF XLV ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS
JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY (CCH-46)
DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF JUNE, 2022
PRESENT:
Sri. Manjunatha, B. A., LL.B.,
XLV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru.
CRL.MISC. No.6045/2022
Petitioner
Akash Kosgi,
Balappa Kosgi,
A/a 42 Yrs.,
R/a No.1,
Rangaraju Nilaya, 2nd Floor,
Adjacent to NTI Layout,
Bhoopasandra,
Bangalore-560 094.
(By Sri/Smt; P. R.
Amudhavalli, Advocate)
AND
Respondent
State by Sanjaynagar P.S.,
Bengaluru.
(By the learned Public
Prosecutor)
ORDER ON BAIL PETITION FILED U/S.438 OF Cr.P.C.,
The learned counsel for the petitioner has filed bail
petition U/s.438 of Cr.P.C., to grant anticipatory bail in favour of
the petitioner and also direct the respondent police to release
2
Crl.Misc.No.6045/2022
him on bail in the event of his arrest in their Crime
No.128/2022 in the interest of justice.
2. On the basis of the complaint filed by the
complainant-Smt.Indira R Shinge, who is the wife of petitioner,
the case was registered against the petitioner in Crime
No.128/2022 for the offences punishable U/s.498A, 504, 506
and 509 of IPC. Now the petitioner being accused is
apprehending his arrest at the hands of respondent police.
Hence, the petitioner constrained to file this petition and
thereby he has 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. Further she has reiterated the contents of
complaint and also contended that if petitioner is granted bail at
the stage of investigation, then the petitioner shall again involve
in causing mental and physical harassment to the complainant.
It is also the objection of the prosecution that the petitioner
would tamper the prosecution witness and hamper the
investigation by not co-operating the respondent police and has
prayed for dismissal of the bail petition.
4. Heard the arguments on both sides and perused the
materials on record.
5. The following points are arises for consideration of this
Court:
1. Whether the petitioner has made out
sufficient
anticipatory
grounds
bail
in
for
his
granting
favour
in
3
Crl.Misc.No.6045/2022
Cr.No.128/2022 of Sanjaynagar 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
case in Crime No.128/2022 against the petitioner on the basis
of complaint filed by Smt.Indira R Shinge, the wife of petitioner
for the offences punishable U/s.498A, 504 506 and 509 of IPC.
The petitioner is accused as per the FIR. Admittedly, the
Petitioner is the husband of the alleged Complainant-Smt.Indira
R Shinge, which is not in dispute.
It is the case of the complainant that on 15.05.2016 the
marriage of accused was solemnized with the complainant and
in the year 2020, she applied for divorce from, the accused has
not attended the Court, and she only looking after the expenses
of her children. Further the accused subjected her to physical
and mental cruelty, by quarreling with her under the influence of
alcohol at her apartments, and sent abusive mails to her
offence and insulted her, and even the accused applied transfer
certificates to the school of her children, and putting them to the
hostel, has also causing harassment to her children. Unable to
bear the physical and mental cruelty caused by the accused,
4
Crl.Misc.No.6045/2022
complainant constrained to file complaint against the petitioners
before respondent police.
8. The contention of petitioner is that he is innocent of the
offences alleged against him and he has not committed any
such offences.

Per-contra as submitted by the learned Public
Prosecutor, the investigation is at the initial stage and it is yet to
be completed. Hence, it is not proper to believe or consider that
the petitioner is innocent of the alleged offences.
9. It is pertinent to note that even for the sake of
argument, it is accepted that there is prima-facie case against
the petitioner for the offences punishable U/s.498A, 504, 506
and 509 of IPC, perhaps the said offences are not punishable
with death or imprisonment for life. The offence U/s.498-A of
IPC is though non-bailable, but it is exclusively triable by the
Magistrate.
10.However, 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.
At this juncture I would like to quote the dictum of law laid down
in the decision report in (2011) 1 Supreme Court cases
694(Siddharam
Satlingappa
Mhetre
Vs.,
State
of
Maharashtra and others) wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court
has held that :-
УSec.438 of Cr.P.C, is not extraordinary in
the
sense
that
it
should
be invoked
only
exceptional or rare cases Ц A great ignominy,
humiliation and disgrace is attached to arrest Ц
In cases where Court is of considered view that
5
Crl.Misc.No.6045/2022
accused has joined investigation and he is fully
co-operating with the investigating agency and is
not likely to abscond, in that event, custodial
interrogation should be avoided, and anticipatory
bail should be granted Ц exercise of said
jurisdiction
requires
maintaining
of
perfect
balance between two conflicting interests viz.,
sanctity or individual liberty and interest of
society.Ф
And also the dictum of law and guidelines laid down by
the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Gurbaksh Singh
Sibbia V., State of Punjab, (1980) 2 SCC 565: 1980 SCC
(Cri) 465 has to be taken into consideration.
” What is the quantum of punishment is not
much important on the other hand, the Courts
ought to consider such nature and gravity of the
accusation and the exact role of the accused
must be properly comprehended before arrest is
made. Further the antecedents of the applicant
including the fact as to whether the accused has
previously
conviction
undergone
by
a
Court
imprisonment
in
respect
of
on
any
cognizable offence, and the possibility of the
applicant to flee from justice is also to be
considered. The
possibility of the accused’s
likelihood to repeat similar or other offences and
where the accusations have been made only with
the object of injuring or humiliating the applicant
6
Crl.Misc.No.6045/2022
by arrest him or her has to be looked into. It is
equally important to note that impact of grant of
anticipatory bail particularly in cases of large
magnitude affecting a very large number of
people has to be taken into consideration. The
Hon’ble Supreme Court has clearly laid down
caution that the Courts must evaluate the entire
available material against the accused very
carefully and while considering the prayer for
grant of anticipatory bail.

While granting the
anticipatory bail the balance has to be struck
between two factors, namely, no prejudice should
be caused to the free, fair and full investigation
and there should be prevention of harassment,
humiliation
and unjustified
detention
of
the
accused. While considering the objections of the
prosecution,
the
court
has
to
reasonable apprehension of tampering
witness
or
apprehension
of
threat
consider
of the
to
the
complainant at time of granting anticipatory bail.
Further the frivolity in prosecution should always
be considered while granting anticipatory bail.
Also order of anticipatory bail should not be
УblanketФ in the sense that it should not enable
the accused to commit further offences and claim
relief. It should be confined to the offence or
incident, for which apprehension of arrest is
sought, in relation to a specific incident Ф.

7
Crl.Misc.No.6045/2022
11.By applying the above dictum of law and guidelines
laid by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, the present fact of
the case has to be analyzed and considered. The certified copy
of complaint and FIR produced by the petitioner discloses that a
complaint has been lodged by the complainant, who is the wife
of petitioner at Sanjaynagar P.S., in Crime No.128/2022 on
09.06.2022 at 20.00 hours for an offence punishable U/s.498A,
504, 506 and 509 of IPC. The petitioner has also produced the
copy of MC Petition No.1912.2020 and copy of the notice in
Crl., Misc., No.57/2022, Copy of adhaar Card etc.,
The
documents would disclose that there is a matrimonial dispute
between petitioner and the complainant. Admittedly, the
petitioner is the husband of the alleged complainant – Smt.Indira
R Shinge, against whom the filing of the complaint is sufficient
to draw apprehension in the minds of the petitioner regarding
his arrest in non-bailable offence.
12. Whether the petitioner has 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 petitioner is ready to abide by the terms and
conditions imposed by the court and when he is ready to offer
due and adequate surety for his release on bail, then this court
is of the opinion that no purpose will be served by allowing the
respondent police to apprehend the petitioner and to keep him
in custody. The petitioner is the the permanent resident as
shown in the cause title and this fact has not been disputed by
the prosecution, as such the presence of petitioner can be
secured easily, hence, the question of absconding of the
8
Crl.Misc.No.6045/2022
petitioner does not arise at all. The objections raised by the
learned Public Prosecutor can be met by imposing stringent
conditions.

Absolutely there is no ground made out by the
prosecution to reject this bail petition. Hence, under these
circumstances, the petitioner has made out sufficient ground for
granting anticipatory bail in his favour at this stage as prayed for
as there exist reason to believe that he may be arrested in nonbailable 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 Petitioner U/s.438 of
Cr.P.C. is hereby allowed.
The Petitioner is ordered to be released on bail
on his executing personal bond for Rs.1,00,000/- with
one surety for like sum to the satisfaction of the
concerned I.O.,/Magistrate in the event of his arrest in
the case in Crime No.128/2022 of Sanjaynagar P.S.,
subject to following conditions:
1.The Petitioner shall make himself available for
interrogation by the I.O. as and when required till the
final report is filed. Further, he shall assist the I.O. in
further investigation of the case. He shall give
attendance before the concerned I.O., once in a
month i.e., preferably on first Sunday of every month
in between 10.00 a.m. and 5.00 p.m. till filing of
charge sheet or further orders whichever is earlier.

9
Crl.Misc.No.6045/2022
2.The Petitioner shall surrender before the
concerned Police within 30 days from the date of this
order without fail.
3.He 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.He shall not hamper further investigation of the
case and tamper with prosecution witnesses in any
manner and shall not intimidate the complainant.
5.He shall not commit similar offences or any
offences during the pendency of case,
6.He
shall
appear
before
the
concerned
Magistrate Court as and when directed.
7.He shall not leave the jurisdiction of the
concerned Court without the prior permission.
8.He shall not change his place of residence
outside the jurisdiction of concerned Court without
prior intimation, and
9.He shall also furnish the notarized copy of his
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 22nd day of
June, 2022)
(Manjunatha)
XLV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru.

10
Crl.Misc.No.6045/2022
Order pronounced in the open court
vide its separate order
ORDER
The bail petition filed by the petitioner
U/s.438 of Cr.P.C. is hereby allowed.
(Manjunatha )
XLV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru.