KABC010160182022
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.5966/2022
Petitioners
1.Bhagyaraj.A
S/o Late Siddaraju,
A/a 35 Yrs.,
2.Smt. Gangamma,
W/o Late Siddaraju,
A/a 54 Yrs.,
Both are r/a No.177, Marutinagar,
Near Balaji Layout,
Lakshmipura,
Vidyranyapura Post,
Bengaluru-560 097.
3.Smt. Jyothi.A
W/o Vasanthkumar.N.V.,
A/a 28 Yrs.,
R/o Nagarur Village,
Dasanapura Hobli,
Bengaluru North Taluk,
Benglauru-562 123.
(By Sri/Smt; M.C. Jagadeesha, Advocate)
AND
2
Crl.Misc.No.5966/2022
Respondents
State by Gangammanagudi P.S.,
(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 of
the Petitioners and also direct the Respondent Police to
release them on bail in the event of their arrest in their Crime
No.68/2022 in the interest of justice.
2. The brief facts of the bail petition is that on the basis of
the information of Smt.Mamtha W/o first petitioner, the
Respondent
Police
have
registered
a
case
in
Crime
No.68/2022 against the Petitioners for an offences punishable
U/s.498A and 506 of IPC and Sec.3 and 4 of DP Act. 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 is 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 and perused the materials on
record.

3
Crl.Misc.No.5966/2022
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
favour
in
Cr.

No.68/2022
of
Gangammanagudi 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 :
Point No. 2
In the Affirmative
:
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.68/2022 against the Petitioners for the offences
punishable U/s.498A and 506 of IPC and Sec.3 and 4 of DP Act
on the Complaint of Smt.Mamtha, who is the W/o first petitioner.
Admittedly the petitioner No.1 is the husband and petitioners
No.2 and 3 are the mother-in-law and sister-in-law of the
alleged complainant-Smt.Mamtha, which is not in dispute.
8.It is the case of the complainant that on 4.5.2018 the
marriage
of
complainant.

accused
No.1
was
solemnized
with
the
After the marriage the complainant started to
reside along with the family members of accused No.1 at that
time the accused No.1 to 3 subjected the complainant to
physical and mental cruelty by demanding additional dowry in
4
Crl.Misc.No.5966/2022
terms of site. And on 24.1.2022 the accused persons have
ousted the complainant from the matrimonial house, caused
alarm to do away with her life. Unable to bear the physical and
mental cruelty caused by the accused, 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 and 506 of
IPC and Sec.3 and 4 of DP Act IPC, and the said offences are
not punishable with death or imprisonment for life. The offence
U/s.498A of IPC is though non-bailable, but it is exclusively
triable by the Magistrate.

5
Crl.Misc.No.5966/2022
11.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 stage I would like to go through the dictum of law laid
down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported 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 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
6
Crl.Misc.No.5966/2022
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
undergone imprisonment on conviction by a Court
in respect of 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 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 consider reasonable apprehension of
7
Crl.Misc.No.5966/2022
tampering of the witness or apprehension of threat
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 incidentФ.
12.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
copies complaint and FIR produced by the petitioners discloses
that a complaint has been lodged by the complainantSmt.Mamtha, who is the wife of first petitioner, and daughter-inlaw of petitioner No.2 and sister-in-law of petitioner No.3 at
Gangammanagudi P.S., in Crime No.68/2022 on 09.06.2022 at
14.30 hours for an offences punishable U/s.498A and 506 of
IPC and Sec.3 and 4 of DP Act. 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 mother-in-law and sister-inlaw of the alleged complainant-Smt.Mamtha, 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.

8
Crl.Misc.No.5966/2022
13.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
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.
14. 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/-
9
Crl.Misc.No.5966/2022
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.68/2022
of Gangammanagudi 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 give his
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.
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
complainant.

and
shall
not
intimidate
the
10
Crl.Misc.No.5966/2022
5.They shall not commit similar offences or any
offences in future.
6.They shall appear before the concerned Magistrate
Court as and when directed.
7.They shall not leave the jurisdiction of concerned
Court without the prior permission,
8.They shall not change their place of residence
outside the jurisdiction of concerned Court
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 22nd day of June, 2022)
(Manjunatha)
XLV Addl. CC & SJ, Bengaluru.

11
Crl.Misc.No.5966/2022
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. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru.