KABC010162332022
IN THE COURT OF THE LII ADDL. CITY CIVIL &
SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE (CCH-53)
Dated this the 28th day of June, 2022
PRESENT
Sri.B.G.Pramoda, B.A.L., LL.B.,
LII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bangalore.
Crl.Misc.No.6051 /2022
Petitioners:
1. Smt.Latharaghavan
W/o T.S.Vijayaraghavan,
Aged about 50 years,
2. Kum.Varshini Raghavan,
D/o T.S.Vijayaraghavan,
Aged about 31 years,
3. Sri.T.S.Vijayaraghavan,
S/o Late Varadarajan,
Aged about 62 years,
All petitioners are R/at “Sai Raj Nivas”,
8-2-613/1, Sairajnivas, Road No.10,
Banjarahills, Near Income Tax
Colony, Hyderabad- 500034.
(By Sri.Manjunatha G., Advocates)
-V/S-
Respondent:
State of Karnataka
Crl.Misc.No.6051/2022
2
By Malleshwaram police station,
Bangalore.
(Represented
Prosecutor)
by
learned
Public
This petition is filed by the petitioners u/Sec.438 of
Cr.P.C., praying to enlarge them on anticipatory bail in the
event of their arrest by respondent police on the basis of
complaint filed by Srilatha and Rithika for the offences
punishable u/Sec.420, 383, 497 and 506 of IPC.
2. It is stated in the petition that Srilatha and Rithika
have approached the respondent-police and they have given
report to the said police by alleging that the petitioners have
committed the offences punishable u/Sec.420, 383, 497 and
506 of IPC. The respondent police at the compulsion of the
complainant are day-in and day out by phone call are
harassing the petitioners and are threatening to arrest the
petitioners on the basis of the false complaint given by the
complainant. The petitioners are innocents and they have not
committee any offence. The petitioner No.1 is suffering from
serious medical issues after the complainant started spreading
false roomer’s against her caused serious mental stress,
agony which leads to final stage of breast cancer to the 1 st
petitioner because of the complainant’s attitude and behaviour.
The petitioners are law abiding citizen and permanent
residents of Bengaluru. The petitioners are ready and willing to
abide by any terms and conditions that may be imposed by the
Crl.Misc.No.6051/2022
3
court for their enlargement on bail. The petitioners are ready
and willing to offer surety to the satisfaction of the court.
Hence, the petitioners have prayed to allow the petition.
3.

The learned Public Prosecutor has filed objections
to the bail petition by opposing the grant of anticipatory bail to
the petitioners. It is stated in the objections that no criminal
case is registered against the petitioners by the respondentpolice.

As such, the petition filed by the petitioners is
premature. It is further stated in the objection that petitioners
are not co-operating with the investigation of the case. The
petitioners have filed the present petition only with an intention
to avoid appearance before the Investigating Officer for inquiry.
Hence, the Learned Public Prosecutor has prayed to reject the
petition filed by the petitioners.
4.

Heard
the
arguments
of
Learned
Public
Prosecutor and Learned counsel for the petitioners. Perused
the petition, objection and other materials on record.
5. Having done so, the following points will arise for my
consideration:
(1) Whether the bail petition filed by the
petitioners u/s.438 of Cr.P.C., is
deserves to be allowed?
(2) What order?
6.

My findings on the above points are as under:
(1) Point No.1
..

In the Affirmative
Crl.Misc.No.6051/2022
4
(2) Point No.2
..

As per final order
for the following:
REASONS
7.

Point No.1:- The
petitioners have filed the
present petition praying for grant of anticipatory bail and
sought for direction to the respondent-police to enlarge them
on bail in the event of their arrest by them on the basis of
complaint given by one Srilatha and Rithika alleging the
commission of offences punishable u/Sec.420, 383, 497 and
506
of IPC. As it is pointed out by the learned PP, the
petitioners have not produced the copy of the complaint
alleged to have given by Srilatha and Rithika against them.
Further as it is rightly contended by learned Public Prosecutor,
no FIR is also registered against the petitioners by the
respondent police.
8.

But only on the ground that no FIR is registered
against the petitioners, anticipatory bail cannot be rejected.
The fact of reasonable apprehension of arrest of the
petitioners has to be considered before granting or rejecting
the anticipatory bail. It is the allegation of the petitioners that
the respondent police without registering the FIR on the basis
of complaint given by Srilatha and Rithika are making efforts to
arrest the petitioners. The respondent police are making phone
calls to the petitioners and they are harassing them and they
are threatening to arrest the petitioners.

Crl.Misc.No.6051/2022
5
9.
marriage
The petitioners have produced the copy of the
invitation
card
of
petitioner
No.2
with
one
Nagamahendra. The petitioners have produced one photo.
The
petitioners
have
produced
copy
of
notice
dated
05.05.2022 issued by petitioner No.1 to Rithika dated
05.05.2022. The petitioners have produced copy of FIR in
Cr.No.67/22 of Malleshwaram police station which was
registered against one delivery boy and Manjunath on the
basis of complaint given by Rithika. Further the petitioners
have produced the copy of the complaint given by Srilatha
against Manjunath and Delivery boy.

The petitioners have
produced copy of legal notice issued by Srilatha and Rithika
and one Bhavana to petitioner No.1 dated 09.05.2022. In the
legal notice, it is stated that criminal prosecution would be
initiated against her for the offences punishable u/Sec.420,
383, 387 and 506 of IPC. The petitioners have also produced
the copy of complaint dated 10.05.2022, given by petitioner
No.1 to Police Commissioner, Bengaluru against Rithika and
Srilatha praying to register case for the offences punishable
u/Sec.506, 504, 503, 294 etc. Another complaint dated
11.05.2022 is also produced. Copy of the FIR in Cr.No.69/22
of Malleshwaram police station is also produced.
10.

From the notice issued by the Srilatha, Rithika
and Bhavana, it is clear that they have going to initiate criminal
proceedings against the petitioners for commission of non-
Crl.Misc.No.6051/2022
6
bailable offence. The materials placed by the petitioners are
sufficient to show the apprehension of the arrest of the
petitioners by the respondent police.

If the petitioners are
arrested by the respondent police without holding proper
enquiry and without following the guidelines of Hon’ble
Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar’s case, the petitioners will be
put to unnecessary hardship and humiliation.
11.

The petitioners have alleged that the respondent
police are trying to arrest them with respect to non-bailable
offence. The offence punishable u/Sec.420, 383, 497 and 506
of IPC are not exclusively punishable with death or
imprisonment for life. The alleged offences are triable by
Learned Magistrate. The petitioners are ready and willing to
abide by any terms and conditions imposed by the court for
their enlargement on bail. The petitioners are also ready to
furnish surety to the satisfaction of the court. The petitioners
are ready to co-operate with the investigation of the case. The
apprehension of learned Public Prosecutor can be make good
by imposing suitable terms and conditions. Hence, by
considering the reasonable apprehension of the arrest of the
petitioners by the respondent police and by considering the
nature and gravity of offence alleged against the petitioners
and by considering the fact that the petitioners are ready and
willing to abide by any terms and conditions imposed by the
court for their enlargement on bail, I am of the opinion that the
petitioners may be granted anticipatory bail by allowing the
7
Crl.Misc.No.6051/2022
petition. Since FIR is not yet registered against the petitioners,
I am of the opinion that anticipatory bail can be granted for
limited period by considering the apprehension of the
petitioners.

Accordingly, I answer the above point in the
Affirmative.
12. Point No.2:- In view of my findings on point No.1, I
proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
The petition filed by the petitioners u/s.438 of
Cr.P.C., is hereby allowed.
The respondent police is hereby directed to
enlarge the petitioners on bail in the event of their
arrest on the basis of the complaint given by
Srilatha and Rithika against the petitioners for the
offences punishable u/Sec.420, 383, 497 and 506 of
IPC, if the respondent-police have registered the
criminal case against the petitioners for the said
offences, on petitioners furnishing personal bond
for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- each and one surety for
likesum each to the satisfaction of the Learned
Magistrate on the following further conditions:CONDITIONS
(1) The petitioners shall appear before the
Investigating Officer as and when called for
during investigation of the case on the basis of
complaint if any given against them by Srilatha
and Rithika and they shall co-operate with
investigation of the case.
(2) The petitioners shall not threaten the informant
and they shall not try to destroy evidence.

8
Crl.Misc.No.6051/2022
(3) The petitioners shall not commit similar offence,
or any other offence in future.
(4) The petitioners shall not leave India without prior
permission of the court.
(5) Violation of any aforesaid conditions would entitle
for cancellation of bail.
It is made clear that this anticipatory bail will be in
force only for the period of two months. If no crime is
registered against the petitioners by the respondentpolice, on the basis of the information alleged to have
been given by Srilatha and Rithika for the offences
punishable u/Sec.420, 383, 497 and 506 of IPC, within
the said period, the anticipatory bail order would come
to an end.
(Dictated to the Stenographer directly on computer, corrected and
then pronounced by me in the open court on this the 28 th day of
June, 2022).

(B.G.Pramoda)
LII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bangalore.

9
Crl.Misc.No.6051/2022
Order pronounced in the open court
(vide separate order)
ORDER
The petition filed by the petitioners u/s.438 of Cr.P.C.,
is hereby allowed.
The respondent police is hereby directed to enlarge
the petitioners on bail in the event of their arrest on the
basis of the complaint given by Srilatha and Rithika against
the petitioners for the offences punishable u/Sec.420, 383,
497 and 506 of IPC, if the respondent-police have
registered the criminal case against the petitioners for the
said offences, on petitioners furnishing personal bond for a
sum of Rs.1,00,000/- each and one surety for likesum each
to the satisfaction of the Learned Magistrate on the
following further conditions:CONDITIONS
(1) The petitioners shall appear before the Investigating
Officer as and when called for during investigation of the
case on the basis of complaint if any given against them
by Srilatha and Rithika and they shall co-operate with
investigation of the case.
(2) The petitioners shall not threaten the informant and they
shall not try to destroy evidence.
(3) The petitioners shall not commit similar offence, or any
other offence in future.
(4) The petitioners shall not leave India without prior
permission of the court.
(5)
Violation of any aforesaid conditions would entitle for
cancellation of bail.
It is made clear that this anticipatory bail will be in
force only for the period of two months. If no crime is
registered against the petitioners by the respondent-police,
1
Crl.Misc.No.6051/2022
on the basis of the information alleged to have been given
by Srilatha and Rithika for the offences punishable
u/Sec.420, 383, 497 and 506 of IPC, within the said period,
the anticipatory bail order would come to an end.

LII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bangalore.

2
Crl.Misc.No.6051/2022