KABC010089892024
IN THE COURT OF XLV ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS
JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY (CCH-46)
DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF APRIL, 2024
PRESENT:
Sri. Manjunatha, B.A., LL.B.,
XLV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.
CRL. MISC. No.3185/2024
Petitioner
Anuj Thakur
S/o Ravindra Pratap Singh Thakur,
a/a 34 yrs.,
r/a Ward No.13, 13 Line, Itarsi,
Hoshangabad, Itarsi SO,
Madya Pradesh-461 111.
(By Sri/Smt; Sonia Rajesh, Adv.,)
AND
Respondent
State by Basavanagudi Women 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 him on bail in the event of his arrest in their Crime
No.281/2023 in the interest of justice.
2. On the basis of the complaint filed by the
complainant-Smt.Nayan Verma, a/a 32 Yrs., who is the wife of
2
Crl.Misc.No.3185/2024
petitioner, the case was registered against the petitioner in
Crime No.282/2023 for the offences punishable U/s.498A, 323,
504 and 506 of IPC and Sec.4 of DP Act. Now the petitioner
being accused is apprehending his arrest by the 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
grounds for granting anticipatory bail in his favour in
Cr.No.281/2023 of Basavanagudi Women 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 NEGATIVE
3
Crl.Misc.No.3185/2024
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.281/2023 against the petitioner on the basis
of complaint filed by complainant-Smt.Nayan Verma, a/a 32
Yrs., who is the wife of petitioner for the offences punishable U/
s.498A, 323, 504 and 506 of IPC and Sec.4 of DP Act.
It is the case of the complainant that on 18.04.2017 the
marriage of accused was solemnized with the complainant and
out of the wedlock they blessed with a male child. Since march
2022 the accused is having illicit relationship with one Poulomi
Sharma, and when she enquired the same, the accused
subjected her to physical and mental cruelty by abusing and
assaulting her, forcing her for mutual divorce and demanded for
additional dowry from her parents, and failed to take care of her
and her child. Unable to bear the physical and mental cruelty
caused by the accused, complainant constrained to file
complaint against the petitioner before respondent police.
8. The contention of petitioner is that he is innocent of the
offence alleged against him and he has not committed any such
offence. 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 offence.
9. It is pertinent to note that even for the sake of
argument, it is accepted that there is prima-facie case against
4
Crl.Misc.No.3185/2024
the petitioner for the offences punishable U/s.498A, 323, 504
and 506 of IPC and Sec.4 of DP Act, 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.
10.10.In this case the petitioner has been already granted
anticipatory bail by this Court in Crl., Misc., No.11236/2023
dated 28.11.2023, but again the present petition has been filed.
There is nothing in the petition as to why another petition is filed
before this Court seeking the same relief. The Anticipatory bail
once granted will enure to the benefit of the petitioner till the
conclusion of trial, if the conditions are fulfilled. Therefore, the
present petition is not maintainable. Hence, the same is liable
to be
dismissed.

Accordingly, I answer Point No.1 in the
Negative.
12. 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 dismissed.
(Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer directly on Computer,
corrected by me and then pronounced in open Court on this the 8th day of April,
2024)
(Manjunatha)
XLV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru.

MANJUNATH
RAMA NAIK
Digitally signed by
MANJUNATH RAMA NAIK
Date: 2024.04.25 17:01:33
+0530
5
Crl.Misc.No.3185/2024
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 dismissed.
(Manjunatha )
XLV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru.

6
Crl.Misc.No.3185/2024