IN THE COURT OF LXXI ADDL. CITY CIVIL &
SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY (CCH-72)
DATED THIS THE 28 th DAY OF JUNE, 2022
PRESENT:
Smt. K.S.JYOTHISHREE, B.Com, L.L.B.
LXXI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru.
CRL.MISC.No.5956/2022
Petitioners
1. Gangadhar.R,
Aged about 32 years,
S/o Gangaiah,
2. Rathnamma,
W/o Gangaiah,
Aged about 52 years
3. Rajappa,
Aged about 60 years,
S/o Kythasetty,
4. Nagaraju,
Aged about 37 years,
S/o Gangaiah,
5. Shivukumar,
Aged about 30 years,
S/o Gangaiah,
All are R/at No.2, 5th Cross,
1st Main, Manjunath
Colony, Vidyapet,
T.R.Nagar, Bangalore.

2
Crl.Misc.No.5956/2022
(By Sri. Prakash K.V, Adv.)
AND
Respondent
State of Karnataka
Basavanagudi Women P S,
Bangalore.
(By the learned Public
Prosecutor)
ORDER ON BAIL APPLICATION FILED U/S.438
OF Cr.P.C.
This bail application is filed by the petitioners
under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. praying to grant an order
of anticipatory bail in the event of their arrest in
Crime No.181/2022 for the offence punishable U/s.
498A, 504, 506 of IPC and Sec. 4 of D.P.Act.
2. The facts are as under:
The complainant is the legally wedded wife of
petitioner No.1 and their marriage was performed on
18.08.2008. After the marriage, the complainant had
stayed with petitioners. In wedlock, she gave birth to
a male child. Thereafter, the petitioner No.1 has
developed illicit relationship with some other lady.

3
The
complainant
questioned
Crl.Misc.No.5956/2022
the
behaviour
of
petitioner No.1. At that time, all the petitioners
started quarrel, abused her in filthy language and
demanded to bring dowry. On 18.08.2018, father of
the complainant was dead. He was working in a
private company and her maternal home received
Rs.1,00,000/- due to the death of her father.

The
petitioners started to demand the said amount,
treated her with cruelty and threatened with dire
consequences.
3. Grounds for bail:
1. The petitioners are innocents.
2. The complainant demanded a separate
house. The petitioner No.1 has agreed to the
demand made by the complainant. But she
left the petitioner No.1 and now has been
residing in her parent’s house.
3. The complainant had illegal relationship
with the friend of petitioner No.1. So she left
the matrimonial home and filed false case.
4. The complainant has borrowed loan from
the Bank and petitioner No.1 is a surety. Now
she has repay the borrowed amount.

4
Crl.Misc.No.5956/2022
5. The petitioners are ready to abide by
conditions to be imposed by the court.

the
With these contentions, they have requested to
allow the application.
4. The learned Public Prosecutor has filed the
objections and re-iterated the complaint averments.
There are prima facie materials against the petitioners
to reject the bail. If the bail application is allowed, the
petitioners may put threat to the complainant and her
parents.

Hence,
prayed
for
dismissal
of
the
application.
5. Heard.
6. Now the points that arise for my consideration
are:
1. Whether the petitioners have made
out sufficient grounds to grant
anticipatory bail ?
2. What order?
7. After hearing the argument of both the parties
and on considering the entire relevant materials on
5
record,
my
findings
on
Crl.Misc.No.5956/2022
the
above
points
are
hereunder:
Point No.1:
Point No.2:
In the affirmative
As per final order,
for the following:
REA S ON S
8. Point No.1: It appears that the relationship
between the complainant and petitioner No.1 is not
good. The petitioner No. 2 and 3 are the parents, the
petitioners No.4 and 5 are the brothers of petitioner
No.1. The complainant has contended that the
petitioners started to harass her and demanded to
bring dowry. It appears that the complainant has filed
O.S.No.3107/2022 as a guardian of her minor son
filed suit for partition against the petitioners.
9. It appears that I.O. has commenced the
investigation,
conducted
mahazar,
recorded
the
statement of witnesses and completed the major part
of the investigation. The involvement of petitioners is
6
Crl.Misc.No.5956/2022
yet to be proved. The alleged offences are not
punishable with death or imprisonment for life. They
are to be tried before learned Magistrate. Hence, there
is absolutely no reason to deny benefit of anticipatory
bail to the petitioners at this stage. Consequently, the
point No.1 is answered in the affirmative.
10. Point No.2: From the discussion made
herein above, it is clear that this petition deserves to
be allowed. In the result, therefore, I proceed to pass
the following:
O RDE R
This bail application filed by the
petitioners under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. is
hereby allowed.
The respondent police is hereby directed
to release the petitioners in the event of their
arrest in Cr.No.177/2022 for the offence
punishable Crime No.181/2022 for the
offence punishable U/s. 498A, 504, 506 of
IPC and Sec. 4 of D.P.Act, subject to the
following conditions:
7
Crl.Misc.No.5956/2022
1. The petitioners shall execute personal
bond for Rs.50,000/- each with like
sum surety.
2. The petitioners shall not threaten the
complainant and other witnesses.
(Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer directly on the computer, corrected by
me and then pronounced in open Court on this the 28th day of June, 2022)
(K.S.JYOTHISHREE)
LXXI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge
Bengaluru.