1
Crl.Misc.No.8520/2023
KABC010234912023
IN THE COURT OF LXIX ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL
AND SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH 70)
Present:
Sri. Balagopalakrishna,
C/c of 69th Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge,
City Civil Court, (CCH 70)
Dated this the 8 th day of September, 2023
Crl.Misc.No.8520/2023
Petitioner :
Archana Shiv Shakthi
d/o Padmakar M.Thombre
aged 57 years, Occ; nil
r/at No. 104, C-10
Red Wood Street,
Ramanashree California,
Yelahanka New Town,
Bengaluru.
(By Sri. S.V.Vadavadagi , Advocate.)
Vs.

Respondent
:
State of Karnataka
By Yelahanka New Town P.S.
Bengaluru.
(By Public Prosecutor)
ORDER ON BAIL PETITION FILED
U/SEC. 438 OF CR.P.C.
This petition is filed by the petitioner u/sec. 438 of Cr.P.C.

2
Crl.Misc.No.8520/2023
praying to grant anticipatory bail to her in the event of her arrest
by the respondent police in Cr. No. 156/2023 of Yelahanka New
Town P.S.for the offence punishable u/sec. 506, 341, 504, 323,
342 of IPC.
2. It is stated in the petition that the respondent police have
registered Cr. No. 156/2023 against the petitioner alleging the
offence punishable u/sec. 506, 341, 504, 323, 342 of IPC on the
basis of the information given by one Vijaya Simha Reddy. It is
further stated in the petition that the petitioner is innocent and she
has not committed any offence as alleged by the police.

The
respondent police are making hectic efforts to arrest the petitioner.
The petitioner has got reasonable apprehension of her arrest by
the respondent police. The petitioner is the permanent resident of
address mentioned in the cause title and she is coming from
respectable family and she has no bad antecedents or previously
convict and there is no case pending against her. The petitioner is
ready to abide by any of the terms and conditions that may be
imposed by the court for his enlargement on bail. The petitioner is
ready and willing to offer surety to the satisfaction of the court.
Hence prayed to allow the petition.
3. The learned Prosecutor
has filed objections
to the
3
Crl.Misc.No.8520/2023
petition alongwith report by opposing the grant of anticipatory bail
to the petitioner on the ground that the offence alleged to have
been committed by the petitioner are grave in nature. It is further
stated that the petitioner is absconding from the date of registering
the case.

It is further stated in the petition that investigation is in
progress, if the petitioner is enlarged on bail she may commit
similar offence in future. It is further stated that if the petitioner is
enlarged on bail it would be difficult to secure her presence for
investigation. With all these grounds amongst others learned PP
has prayed to reject the petition filed by the petitioner.
4. Heard the arguments of learned P.P. and also counsel for
the petitioner. Perused the petition, objection and other material on
record.
5. The following points would arise for my consideration
are as under:
1. Whether the petitioner has made out
grounds to grant anticipatory bail u/sec. 438 of
Cr.P.C.?
2. What order?
6. On the basis of the evidence available on record my
finding on the above points are as under:
i. Point No.1:
ii. Point No.2:
In the negative.
As per final order on the following
REASONS
7. The petitioner has filed present petition praying to grant
4
Crl.Misc.No.8520/2023
anticipatory bail to him in Cr. No. 156/2023 of Yelahanka New
Town police for the offences punishable u/sec.506, 341, 504, 323,
342 of IPC. The said crime was registered by the police on the
basis of the information given by Vijaya Simha Reddy.

The
petitioner has produced the certified copy of the FIR, complaint
and other
documents. As per the FIR the complainant lodged
complaint alleging that the petitioner is a resident of C10, plot 104,
Redwood California Apartment, the accused always used to
trouble the residents of the apartment and always resists the
playing of children and about two to three months ago when the
children of the residents of apartment and children of security
guard by name Mukesh were playing, the petitioner threatened
them and locked them in a room and on 24.5.2023 at about 8.30
am the petitioner called Mukesh the Security and since he did not
respond the petitioner has started abusing him saying that he has
come from Nepal to commit robbery and has hit him on his back
and threatened him saying she will not spare him and when the
complainant tried to rescue Mukesh who is the Security, she has
abused him and threatened him for life. .
8. On going through the material on record it is pertinent to
note that
the offences alleged against the accused are u/sec.

5
Crl.Misc.No.8520/2023
506, 341, 504, 323, 342 of IPC. It is pertinent to note that the
allegations made against the accused are wrongful confinement,
voluntarily causing hurt to neighbors and wrongfully restraining the
way of another person, the said offences are all bailable offences.
The alleged offences are not non-bailable offences. The accused
instead
of
approaching
the
jurisdictional
Magistrate
has
approached this court and filed this bail petition which is not
maintainable.

Since the alleged offences are bailable offences
the petition itself is not maintainable and same is liable to be
dismissed as not maintainable. Accordingly this Point No.1 is in
the negative.
9. Point No.2: By considering the above over all reasons
this court proceed to pass the following;
ORDER
Bail petition filed u/sec. 438 of Cr.P.C. by the
Petitioner is hereby rejected as not maintainable.
(Dictated to the JW, transcript thereof is corrected, signed and
then pronounced by me in open court on this the 8 th day of
September , 2023)
(Balagopalakrishna)
c/c of 69th Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge,
(CCH 70), Bangalore.

6
Crl.Misc.No.8520/2023
Order pronounced in open court, vide separate order.;
ORDER
Bail petition filed u/sec. 438 of Cr.P.C. by the
Petitioner is hereby rejected as not maintainable.

(Balagopalakrishna)
c/c of 69th Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge,
(CCH 70), Bangalore.