KABC010084532024 IN THE COURT OF XLV ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY (CCH-46) DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF APRIL, 2024 PRESENT: Sri. Manjunatha, B.A., LL.B., XLV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru. CRL.MISC. No.2982/2024 Petitioners 1.G. Venkataramana Reddy, S/o Late Govindhappa, a/a 70 Yrs., Retired Government Doctor and Retired Professor at Victoria Hospital 2.Smt. Usha Reddy W/o Dr. G. Venkatarama Reddy, a/a 68 Yrs., Both are r/a No.L68, 3rd Main Road, 6th Sector, HSR Layout, Bangalore. 3.Smt. Shoba W/o Late Udayashankar, a/a 62 Yrs., r/o Shankar Mutt Main road, Basavanagudi, Bangalore. (By Sri/Smt; S. Shankarappa, Adv.,) AND Respondent State by South CEN Crime P. S., Bengaluru. (By the learned Public Prosecutor) 2 Crl.Misc.No.2982/2024 ORDER ON BAIL PETITION FILED U/S.438 OF Cr.P.C., The learned counsel for 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.506/2024 in the interest of justice.

2. The brief facts of the bail petition is that based on the

complaint of complainant-Smt.R. Mohisha, a/a 25 Yrs., the Respondent Police have registered case against the Petitioners and another in Crime No.506/2024 for the offences punishable U/s.66(C) 66(D)and 67 of Information Technology Act, 2008 and Sec.509 and 419 r/w Sec.34 of IPC. The Petitioners being accused persons apprehending their arrest by the Respondent Police and constrained to file this petition to grant bail and thereby they have prayed for allowing the petition.

3. The learned Public Prosecutor has filed objection in

detail along with the report of I.O., 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 are granted bail there is chance of destroying the evidence, tamper the prosecution witnesses and hamper the investigation. Accordingly, prayed for rejection of bail petition.

4. Heard the arguments on both sides. Perused the

relevant materials on record. 3 Crl.Misc.No.2982/2024

5. The following points are arises for consideration of this

Court: 1.WhetherthePetitionershavemadeoutsufficient grounds for granting Anticipatory bail in their favour in Cr. No.506/2024 of South CEN Crime P.S,atthisstageassoughtfor? 2.Whatorder?

6. This court has answered the above points are as

under: PointNo.1 : IntheAffirmative PointNo.2 : Asperfinalorder forthefollowing: R E A S O N S

7. Point No.1: On considering the papers on record, it is

evident to note that the Respondent Police have registered a case against the Petitioners and another in Crime No.506/2024 for the offences punishable U/s.66(C) 66(D)and 67 of Information Technology Act, 2008 and Sec.509 and 419 r/w Sec.34 of IPC. on the Complaint of complainant-Smt.R. Mohisha, a/a 25 Yrs., 8.It is the case of the complainant that on 24.09.2023 the marriage of complainant was solemnized with one Manjunathaswamy, the same is love and inter cast marriage, the parents of her husband did not like the same, in that regard they insisting her husband to divorce, as husband of complainant not divorced, the accused persons created a Instagram and facebook accounts under the name as trader1045786, @monisha wife of cheater, manishavskiran and 4 Crl.Misc.No.2982/2024 manjuwetvarsha, and started to post defamatory statements against the complainant in the said social media by causing defamation to her. Further the accused persons created group by including the names of complainant and her husband used to post defamatory statement against them. In that regard she had talked with the family members of her husband. Subsequently the accused persons have deleted the Instagram and facebook accounts, but trader1045786 was in active. Accordingly complainant has lodged the complaint against accused persons before the respondent police. 9.The contention of petitioners is that they are innocent of the offences alleged against them and they have not committed any such offences. On the contrary the prosecution has submitted unless a full-fledged trial is complete, the accused/petitioners cannot be considered as innocent at this point of time.

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.66(C) 66(D)and 67 of Information Technology Act, 2008 and Sec.509 and 419 r/w Sec.34 of IPC, even though the said offences are not punishable with death or imprisonment for life, exclusively triable by the Magistrate. 11.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 FIR and complaint produced by the petitioners discloses that there was apprehension of their arrest by the 5 Crl.Misc.No.2982/2024 respondent police for the alleged non-bailable offence. Though the offences are non-bailable, but not punishable with death or imprisonment for life. The entire fact has to be gathered only after full fledged trial. But at this juncture, it is clear that there is an apprehension that the petitioners might be arrested in non-bailable offences for interrogation by the respondent police for enquiry. It is pertinent to note that the interrogation of the accused/petitioners is not at all required for the alleged offences as shown in the FIR. By considering all the above facts and arguments canvased by prosecution it is found that if stringent conditions are imposed on the appearance of the petitioners/accused persons before the I.O.,/Court the purpose of prosecution objection that petitioners/accused would not appear for enquiry before I.O., and trial before Court would be met with. At this juncture, it is equally important to note that when the petitioners are ready to abide by the terms and conditions imposed by the court and when ready to face the trial by offering adequate surety, this court is satisfied and is of the opinion that no purpose will be served by allowing the respondent police to apprehend the petitioners for interrogation. 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. Accordingly, under these 6 Crl.Misc.No.2982/2024 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.

12. Point No. 2: In view of answer of this Court on point

No.1, this court pass the following:- O R D E R 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/- each with two sureties for like sum to the satisfaction of the concerned I.O.,/Magistrate in the event of their arrest in the case in Crime No.506/2024 of South CEN Crime P. S., subject to following conditions:- 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. 2.The Petitioners shall surrender before the concerned Police within 15 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., 7 Crl.Misc.No.2982/2024 4.They shall not hamper further investigation of the case and tamper with prosecution witnesses in any manner and shall not intimidate the complainant. 5.They shall not commit similar offences or any offences during the pendency of case, 6.They shall appear before the concerned Magistrate Court as and when directed. 7.They shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Bangalore City without the prior permission. 8.They shall not change his place of residence outside the jurisdiction of concerned Court without prior intimation. 9.They shall also furnish the notarized copy of their residential id address proof. 10.In the event of violation of any of the above conditions, the above bail shall stand automatically canceled. (Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer directly on Computer, corrected by me and then pronounced in open Court on this the 10th day of April, 2024) (Manjunatha) XLV Addl. CC & SJ, Bengaluru. MANJUNATH DigitallyMANJUNATHsignedRAMAby NAIK RAMA NAIK Date:+05302024.04.25 17:19:49 8 Crl.Misc.No.2982/2024 Order pronounced in the open court vide its separate order O R D E R The bail petition filed by the petitioners U/s.438 of Cr.P.C. is hereby allowed. (Manjunatha) XLV Addl. CC & SJ, Bengaluru.