KABC010088302024
IN THE COURT OF THE LXX ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL
AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPECIAL JUDGE,
BENGALURU(CCH-71)
Dated this the 19th day of April 2024.
Present: Sri. Rajesh Karnam.K, B.Sc.,LL.B.,LL.M.,
LXX Additional City Civil and Sessions
Judge and Special Judge, Bengaluru.
Crl.Misc.No.3124/2024
PETITIONER/S:
Smt.D.N.Vaishnavi @ Vyshnavi
Devanahalli Nagaraj,
W/o Y.N.Raghavendra,
Aged about 45 years,
R/at No.59, Vrinda, 2H Main,
Nagarabhavi 11th block,
Bengaluru-560 072.
(Rep.by Sri.Mohan Murthy, Advocate).
-V/S-
RESPONDENTS:
1.The State by
Annapoorneshwari Police Station,
Rep.by Public Prosecutor,
City Civil Court Complex,
Bengaluru-560 102.
2.Smt.V.Netravathi,
w/o.G.N.Pradeep,
Aged about 43 years,
R/at No.60,
Sri.Lakshmi Narasimhaswamy
Nilaya,
2nd УHФ Main road,
11th block, Nagarabhavi 2nd Stage,
2
Crl.Misc.No.3124/2024
Bengaluru-72.
ORDER
This petition is filed by the petitioner seeking for
anticipatory bail as jurisdictional Annapoorneshwari
police have registered Crime No.308/2023 for the
offences punishable under sections 504, 506 of IPC
and sec.3(2)(v-a) of Scheduled Castes & Scheduled
Tribes Act 1989.

2.

The petitioner submits jurisdictional police has
registered
police
Cr.No.308/2022
station
Investigating
27.8.2023
on
Officer
against
the
of
Annapoorneshwari
strength
registered
the
present
of
crime
PCR
only
petitioner
the
on
and
another Raghavendra. The complainant has made
false complaint. The complainant is residing in
No.59, II H Main road, 11th block, Nagarabhavi 2nd
stage by putting up construction in a vacant site and
accused Nos.1 and 2 used to allow water to sprinkle
in the house of the complainant that too in the
bedroom are all false. The complainant had made
3
Crl.Misc.No.3124/2024
allegation on 1.1.2023 the accused have abused her
and to prevent the house to be completed, accused
persons are making attempt to stop the same and
complainant had made complaint about abusive
words used by the accused. The alleged complaint is
filed only with regard to offence punishable u/s.504,
506 of IPC and 3(2)(v) of SC/ST (POA) Act 1989. The
Investigating Officer has filed final report. In fact this
accused has been shown as absconding, even
without making any effort. The Investigating Officer
has filed charge sheet. As per the records collected
by the Investigating Officer at page-36 discloses the
present accused was in the limits of Chitradurga
jurisdiction as per the tower indication. Therefore the
allegations made by the complainant prima facie
appears to be false. In fact police have closed,
Investigating Officer filed charge sheet against
accused No.1 considering there is no material that
too
call
details
discloses
the
accused
No.1
Raghavendra was not within the tower location as
alleged and he was at some other place that too
4
Crl.Misc.No.3124/2024
near Davanagere. Therefore prima facie case has
been made out by the accused as such accused is to
be granted conditional bail is the prayer.

3.

The grounds of the petition is that she is
innocent of alleged offence and the petitioner is a
law abiding citizen. The petitioner is a permanent
resident of Bengaluru. The alleged offences are not
punishable with death or imprisonment for life. The
petitioner nor her husband have indulged in any
such activities as alleged by the complainant. The
petitioner
has
no
criminal
antecedents.

The
petitioner has got valid and tenable defence. The
petitioner is ready and willing to abide by the
conditions imposed by this court. Hence petitioner is
forced to come up with this petition.

4.

As against the petition, the learned Special
Public Prosecutor has filed objection submitting that
the complaint has been given against Raghavendra
and also the present accused while cleaning their
premises, they have split over the water into the
5
Crl.Misc.No.3124/2024
bedroom of the complainant as such complaint has
been filed, Anyhow charge sheet has been filed by
the Investigating Officer. As such the bail application
of the petitioner is not maintainable and prays to
dismiss the same.

5.

The complainant has appeared through the
counsel
and
filed
objections.

The
complainant
submits the original PCR is filed for the offence
punishable u/s.120A, 506, 509, 354, 354A, 354B and
354D r/w.sec.34 of IPC and sec.3(1)(e)(r)(s)(w)(ii) of
SC/ST (POA) Act 1989. The complainant submits the
accused were disturbing her peaceful possession
and making hectic attempts to drive away the
complainant from the locality. The complainant
immediately informed the accused Nos.1 and 2, and
questioned
about
their
atrocities
against
the
complainant family their merciless attitude, their
rude attitude without a minimum courtesy of patient
being residing in the neighbouring property. The
accused No.1 freaked out holding a cricket bat in his
hand without having a minimum courtesy that the
6
Crl.Misc.No.3124/2024
complainant is a women using his foul language
started scolding that they are belonging to lower
caste.

The
complainant
submits
accused
bail
application is not maintainable, they are harassing,
as such as per the citation of Satendar Kumar Antil
V/s.

Central
Bureau
of
investigation
the
bail
application of the accused is to be rejected is the
prayer. The learned counsel for the complainant
submits bail application of the accused is not
maintainable as there is prima facie materials
placed, bail application is to be dismissed.
6.

Heard the arguments of both side and perused
the records.
7.

The following points arise for my consideration;
1.

2.
8.

POINTS
Whether the petition filed by
the petitioner made out a
ground for the reason to
considered is bail u/s.438 of
Cr.P.C.,?
What Order?

My answers to the above points are ;
7
Crl.Misc.No.3124/2024
Point No.1:
In the УAffirmativeФ
Point No.2: As per final order
for the following;
REASONS
9.

POINT NO.1: On going through the materials
on record, as submitted by the learned counsel for
the petitioner/accused as per the tower location
placed by the Investigating Officer in the charge
sheet,
discloses
the
present
accused
being
presented at the spot itself is doubtful as argued by
the
learned
counsel for the
petitioner
seems
reasonable. In this case though charge sheet is
already filed without enquiry the accused charge
sheet has been filed by letting off the husband of
the petitioner from being aggressor and committing
the alleged offence. However this petitioner alone
has been charge sheeted for the reasons known to
the Investigating Officer. In the case on hand, as per
the citation of Prathvi Raj Chauhan V/s. Union of
India the allegations made in the PCR and the
8
Crl.Misc.No.3124/2024
charge sheet and the documents placed for the
petitioner prima facie no case is made out. As such
benefit of the citation is to be given to the accused
seems reasonable. Accordingly this Point No.1 for
consideration is answered in the Affirmative.
10.

Point No.2: In view of my findings on Point
No.1, I proceed to pass the following;
ORDER
The Petition filed by the Petitioner
under Section 438 of Cr.P.C., is hereby
allowed.

Petitioner is ordered to be released on
anticipatory bail in the event of her arrest
in
Cr.No.308/2023
on
executing
her
personal bond for Rs.50,000/-, Rs.5,000/cash surety before the court with one
surety
of
her/close
relative
on
the
following conditions;
1. The petitioner shall appear before
the IO within 10 days from the
date of receipt of this order.

9
Crl.Misc.No.3124/2024
3. The
petitioner
shall
regularly
appear before the IO as and
when
she
is
called
for
the
purpose of investigation.
4. The petitioner shall not tamper
with
prosecution
witnesses
directly or indirectly.
4. The petitioner shall not indulged
in any other offence.

If any of the above conditions violated, the IO
is at liberty to move for cancellation of bail.

(Dictated to the stenographer Grade I, transcribed her,
transcription corrected, signed and then pronounced in
open court on this the 19th day of April, 2024).

(Rajesh Karnam.K)
LXX Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge
and Special Judge, Bengaluru.