IN THE COURT OF LXXI ADDL. CITY CIVIL &
SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY (CCH-72)
DATED THIS THE 23 rd DAY OF JUNE, 2022
PRESENT:
Smt. K.S.JYOTHISHREE, B.Com, L.L.B.
LXXI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru.
CRL.MISC.No.5920/2022
Petitioners
1. Gangadhara Nayaka,
Aged about 36 years,
S/o Thavari Nayaka,
R/at Bhavasingha
Nayakana Thanda, Neerale
Gudda Village, Yarakatte
Post, Bukkapatna Hobli,
Sira Taluk, Tumakur.
2. Kiran Kumar Nayaka,
S/o Vasudeva Nayaka,
Aged about 25 years
3. Umesh Nayaka,
Aged about 21 years,
S/o Vasudeva Nayaka,
4. Sanna Nayaka,
Aged about 59 years,
S/o Gopal Nayaka,
5. Smt.Rathna Bai,
W/o Late.Vasudeva,
Aged about 40 years
6. Smt. Bhagya Bai,
2
Crl.Misc.No.5920/2022
D/o Bhima Nayaka,
Aged about 36 years
Petitioners No.2 to 6 are
R/at Yaradhakatte Post,
Sira Taluk,
Bavasinganayaka Thanda,
Tumakur.
7. Smt. Lakshmi Bhai @
Dhani Bhai,
W/o Dhadha Peer,
Aged about 37 years,
R/at No.321, 11th Cross, 3rd
Main, Agrahara Layout,
Bangalore.
8. Raja Nayaka,
Aged about 30 years,
S/o Krishna Nayaka,
R/at Bhavasingha
Nayakana Thanda,
Neerale Gudda Village,
Yarakatte Post, Bukkapatna
Hobli, Sira Taluk, Tumakur.
9. Smt.Meenakshi Nayaka,
W/o Meera Nayaka,
Aged about 52 years,
R/at Chokkasandra Village,
Bangalore.
(By Sri.K.M.Manjunath,
Adv.)
AND
Respondent
State of Karnataka
Bhagalagunte P S,
3
Crl.Misc.No.5920/2022
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.224/2022 for the offences punishable U/s.
498A, 323, 504, 506 r/w 149 of IPC.
2. The facts are as under:
The complainant is the legally wedded wife of
petitioner No.1. Their marriage was solemnized on
03.06.2013. After the marriage, the petitioner No.1
started quarrel with the complainant, abused and
assaulted without any reason. During 2019, the
petitioner No.1, complainant and their children came
down to Bengaluru. At that time, the complainant was
working in Garments factory and the petitioner No.1
joined Petrol Bunk. Even then, the petitioner No.1
4
Crl.Misc.No.5920/2022
again started quarrel, abused in filthy language and
deserted the family.

On 06.06.2022 at about 12.00
noon, in the house of her mother at Bhavsingh Nayak
Thanda, Sira Taluk, the petitioners with common
object, started quarrel with complainant and her
relatives, assaulted her and her mother, abused in
filthy
language
and
threatened
with
dire
consequences.
3. Grounds for bail:
1. The petitioners are innocents.
2. The complaint was given with ill intention.
3. No such incident was taken place.
4. The petitioners are ready to abide by the
conditions to be imposed by the court.
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
5
Crl.Misc.No.5920/2022
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.

My
findings
on
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 complainant and petitioner No.1 is not
cordial. The alleged dispute is matrimonial in nature.
It is the contention of the complainant that, the
petitioners with common object, started quarrel,
6
Crl.Misc.No.5920/2022
assaulted with hands, abused in filthy language and
put life threat.
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
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:
7
Crl.Misc.No.5920/2022
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 Crime No.224/2022 for the offences
punishable U/s. 498A, 323, 504, 506 r/w
149 of IPC., subject to the following
conditions:
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 23rd day
of June, 2022)
(K.S.JYOTHISHREE)
LXXI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge
Bengaluru.