KABC010228852023
IN THE COURT OF XLV ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS
JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY (CCH-46)
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2023
PRESENT:
Sri. Manjunatha, B.A., LL.B.,
XLV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.
CRL. MISC. No.8328/2023
Petitioner
Dinesh Kumar Jaiswal,
S/o late Niranjan Lal
r/o E-429, Kamlanagar, Agra,
U.P-282005.
(By Sri/Smt; Stanley Sam, Adv.,)
AND
Respondent
State by KR Puram, 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.536/2023 in the interest of justice.
2. On the basis of the complaint filed by the
complainant-Smt.Sonali Badola, a/a 43 yrs., who is the wife of
2
Crl.Misc.No.8328/2023
accused No.1, the case was registered against the petitioner
and another in Crime No.536/2023 for the offences punishable
U/s.498A, 323 and 506 r/w Sec.34 of IPC and Sec.3 and 4 of
DP
Act.

Now
the
petitioner
being
accused
No.2
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.536/2023 of KR Puram P. S., at this stage as
sought for?
2. What order?
6. This court has answered the above points are as
under:
3
Crl.Misc.No.8328/2023
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.536/2023 against the petitioner and another
on the basis of complaint filed by Smt.Sonali Badola, a/a 43
Yrs., who is the wife of accused No.1 for the offences
punishable U/s.498A, 323 and 506 r/w Sec.34 of IPC and Sec.3
and 4 of DP Act. Admittedly, the petitioner is the relative of the
husband of the alleged defacto complainant-Smt.Sonali Badola,
which is not in dispute.
It is the case of the complainant that she along with her
husband and her son residing at Kadugodi, Bangalore, at that
time the accused No.1 subjected her to physical and mental
cruelty by abusing and assaulting her and also harassed on 30 th
April at night. In that regard on 1.5.2023 she lodged complaint
against accused before Kadugodi Police and left to her brother
house at Dehradun. The accused and his family members
came and promised to take care of her properly, and took back
her, by making a separate house at Bhattarahalli, KR Puram,
Bangalore since 10th June she, and accused and family
members of accused were residing, at that time the accused
and his family members forcing her to withdrawn the
complainant and to bring money to purchase a new house,
subjected her to physical and mental cruelty, and on 1.8.2023
when she enquire accused No.1 about packing of luggage, the
4
Crl.Misc.No.8328/2023
accused No.1 left by assaulting her. And on 8.8.2023 returned
to house by not paying the house rent and failed to provide
household articles.

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 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 and another for the offences punishable
U/s.498A, 323 and 506 r/w Sec.34 of IPC and Sec.3 and 4 of
DP Act, the said offences ares 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.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. The certified
copies of complaint and FIR produced by the petitioner
discloses that a complaint has been lodged by the complainant,
at KR Puram P.S., in Crime No.536/2023 on 12.08.2023 at
16.00 hours for the offences punishable U/s.498A, 323 and 506
r/w sec.34 of IPC and sec.3 and 4 of DP Act. The documents
would disclose that there is a matrimonial dispute between
petitioner and the complainant. Admittedly, the petitioner is the
5
Crl.Misc.No.8328/2023
relative of the husband of the alleged complainant-Smt.Sonali
Badola, 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. It is equally important to
note that the allegations in the complaint prima facie is against
accused No.1, who has already been granted bail.
11. Whether the petitioner has committed the alleged
offence 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
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 offence. Accordingly, I answer Point No.1 in the
affirmative.

6
Crl.Misc.No.8328/2023
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 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.536/2023 of KR Puram 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.
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 in future,
7
Crl.Misc.No.8328/2023
6.He
shall
appear
before
the
concerned
Magistrate Court as and when directed,
7.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 4th day of August,
2023)
(Manjunatha)
XLV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru.

8
Crl.Misc.No.8328/2023
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.

9
Crl.Misc.No.8328/2023