KABC010162152022
IN THE COURT OF XLV ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS
JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY (CCH-46)
DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF JULY, 2022
PRESENT:
Sri Manjunatha, B.A., L.L.B.,
XLV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru.
CRL.MISC. No.6044/2022
Petitioner
Manjunatha
S/o lae Ganganna,
A/a 33 Yrs.,
R/o Ullal Basti,
Ullal Upanagara,
Bengaluru-560 056.
(By Sri/Smt; B. Siddeshwara,
Advocate)
AND
Respondent
State by Jnanabharathi P.S.,
Bengaluru.
(By the learned Public
Prosecutor)
ORDER ON BAIL PETITION FILED U/S.439 OF Cr.P.C.
The learned counsel for petitioner/accused No.1 has filed
bail petition U/s.439 of Cr.P.C. to release him on bail
consequent upon his remand to judicial custody in the case
registered against him and others by the respondent Police on
2
Crl.Misc. No.6044/2022
the complaint of Smt. Bhagyamma W/o Late Lingarajau, a/a 45
Yrs., who is the mother of deceased-Smt.Ranjitha for the
offences punishable U/s.498A and 304B r/w Sec.149 of IPC and
Sec.3 and 4 of DP Act in their Crime No.276/2021(SC
No.977/2022) in the interest of justice.
2.It is the case of the prosecution that on 25.03.2017 the
marriage of accused No.1 was solemnized with deceasedSmt.Ranjitha and out of the wedlock they had two children.
After the marriage the deceased started to reside along with
accused No.1 to 3 at Ullal Basthi, Bengaluru, at that time the
accused No.1 to 3 have subjected the deceased to physical and
mental cruelty in demanding additional dowry. Further it is the
case of the complainant when her daughter-Smt. Ranjitha had
been to her parental house for second delivery, at that time the
accused No.1 had illicit relationship with another women, and
when the deceased-Smt. Ranjitha resisted, the accused No.1
threatened to divorce her. Further when the said fact has been
brought to the notice of accused No.2 and 3, in spite of advising
accused No.1, both the accused No.2 and 3 along with accused
No.1 have abused the complainant in filthy language, assaulted
her in demanding additional dowry from her parental house.
Further it is the case of the complainant that on 19.12.2021 at
8.00 p.m. the deceased had intimated the same to the
complainant and her elder sister regarding the physical and
mental harassment of accused persons. It is also the case of
the complainant that on 25.12.2021 at 8.30 a.m. she came to
know that her daughter deceased-Smt. Ranjitha committed
3
Crl.Misc. No.6044/2022
suicide by hanging at her matrimonial home.

It is further
alleged in the complaint that the cause of death due to the
abetment of the accused No.1 to 3, who subjected her to
mental and physical cruelty in demanding additional dowry and
the accused No.1 by having illicit relationship with other women.
Accordingly, complaint has been lodged before the respondent
police against the accused persons
The respondent police arrested the petitioner on
20.12.2021
and
produced
him
before
the
jurisdictional
magistrate, where he was remanded to judicial custody.
3.The petitioner claim innocence and contended that he
has been falsely implicated in the said case and the false case
has been lodged against him to implicate him in the crime,
which he has not committed. He is ready to abide by any
conditions that would be imposed by this court, therefore the
petitioner has prayed for allowing this petition.
4.The learned Public prosecutor has filed objection in
detail by submitting that this petition is not maintainable in law
or on facts and for the reasons stated in the objection has
prayed for dismissal of the petition.
5.Heard the arguments of both sides and perused the
materials on record.
6.The points that arise for consideration of this Court are
as under:
1. Whether the petitioner has made out
sufficient grounds for his release on bail
at this stage as prayed for?

4
Crl.Misc. No.6044/2022
2. What order?
7. This Court has answered the above points are as under:
Point No.1 :
In the Negative
Point No.2 :
As per final order
for the following:
REASONS
8. Point No.1: On considering the papers on record, it is
evident to note that the respondent police have registered case
against the petitioner and others in crime No.276/2021 for the
offence punishable U/s.498A and 304B r/w Sec.149 of IPC and
Sec.3 and 4 of DP Act. After completion of investigation the
respondent police have submitted charge sheet against the
petitioners and others before the jurisdictional Court for the
offences punishable U/s.498A and 304B r/w Sec.34 of IPC and
Sec.3 and 4 of DP Act. The fact that the complainant/informant
is the mother
and the petitioner is the husband of the
deceased-Smt.Ranjitha, which is not in dispute. As the offences
U/s.304B of IPC charge sheeted against the petitioner/accused
is exclusively triable by this Court, the case has been
committed to this Court for disposal.
9.It is the case of the prosecution that on 25.03.2017 the
marriage of accused No.1 was solemnized with deceasedSmt.Ranjitha and out of the wedlock they had two children.
After the marriage the deceased started to reside along with
accused No.1 to 3 at Ullal Basthi, Bengaluru, at that time the
accused No.1 to 3 have subjected the deceased to physical and
mental cruelty in demanding additional dowry. Further it is the
5
Crl.Misc. No.6044/2022
case of the complainant when her daughter-Smt. Ranjitha had
been to her parental house for second delivery, at that time the
accused No.1 had illicit relationship with another women, and
when the deceased-Smt. Ranjitha resisted, the accused No.1
threatened to divorce her. Further when the said fact has been
brought to the notice of accused No.2 and 3, in spite of advising
accused No.1, both the accused No.2 and 3 along with accused
No.1 have abused the complainant in filthy language, assaulted
her in demanding additional dowry from her parental house.
Further it is the case of the complainant that on 19.12.2021 at
8.00 p.m. the deceased had intimated the same to the
complainant and her elder sister regarding the physical and
mental harassment of accused persons. It is also the case of
the complainant that on 25.12.2021 at 8.30 a.m. she came to
know that her daughter deceased-Smt. Ranjitha committed
suicide by hanging at her matrimonial home.

It is further
alleged in the complaint that the cause of death due to the
abetment of the accused No.1 to 3, who subjected her to
mental and physical cruelty in demanding additional dowry and
the accused No.1 by having illicit relationship with other women.
Accordingly, complaint has been lodged before the respondent
police against the accused persons.
10. The contention of petitioner is that he is innocent of
the offences alleged and there is absolutely no case made out
against him for the alleged offences. It is vehemently argued by
the counsel for the petitioner that the accused No.1/petitioner
has been falsely implicated in the said case, who has not
6
Crl.Misc. No.6044/2022
committed any offences as alleged in the complaint. It is the
main contention of the petitioner is that charge sheet is already
filed and the custodial interrogation of petitioner is not at all
required.

Per contra the learned Public Prosecution has
argued that the respondent police have already completed the
investigation and filed charge sheet against the petitioner and
others for the offences punishable U/s.498A and 304B r/w
Sec.34 of IPC and Sec.3 and 4 of DP Act, and at this stage if he
is released on bail they might abscond and would not be
available for trial. Further it is also contended by the
prosecution that the petitioner might tamper the prosecution
witnesses.
11.It is pertinent to note that even for the sake of
argument, it is accepted that there is prima-facie case against
the petitioner for the offences punishable U/s.498A and 304B
r/w Sec.34 of IPC and Sec.3 and 4 of DP Act, the offence
U/s.304B of IPC is not punishable with death, it is punishable
with imprisonment of not less than 7 years but which may
extend to imprisonment for life and exclusively triable by this
Court.
12.On perusal of the FIR, charge sheet and averments
made in the complaint, prima facie it discloses that the
petitioner/accused No.1 in collusion with accused No.2 and 3
caused the death of deceased-Smt.Ranjitha to mental and
physical cruelty in demand of additional dowry and accused
No.1 by having illicit relationship with other women. The Hon’ble
Supreme
Court
in
(2017)
5
Supreme
Court
cases
7
Crl.Misc. No.6044/2022
406(Virupakshappa Gouda and another V., State of
Karnataka and another) held that
“Filing of charge-sheet does not in any manner
lessen allegations but rather establishes that
after due investigation prosecution has filed
charge-sheet for trial of accused persons. Filing
of charge sheet does not amount changing
circumstances.”
“Bail application cannot be allowed solely or
exclusively on ground that fundamental principle
of criminal jurisprudence is that accused is
presumed to be innocent until found guilty by
competent
court
nor
on
basis
of
certain
observation made in different context – There
must be application of mind, appreciation of
factual
score
and
understanding
of
pronouncements in field – Bail cannot be granted
in arbitrary or fanciful manner – Where bail is
granted
taking
into
consideration
irrelevant
materials and keeping or relevant considerations,
such
order
becomes
vulnerable
warranting
annulment.”
and also in Kalyan Chandra Sarkar V., Rajesh
Ranjan (2004) 7 SCC 528: 2004 SCC (Cri) 1977
has held that while granting bail the Court should
exercise its discretion in a judicial manner and
8
Crl.Misc. No.6044/2022
not a matter of coerce. It is also necessary for
the Court granting bail to consider
(a) The nature of accusation and the severity of
punishment in case of conviction and the nature
of supporting evidence.
(b) Reasonable apprehension of tampering with
the witness or apprehension of threat to the
complainant,
(c) Prima facie satisfaction of the Court in
support of the charge, as a dictum of law laid down
in Ram Govind Upadhyay V. Sudarshan Singh
(2002) 3 SCC 598: 2002 SCC (Cri) 688 that
“Grant of bail though being a discretionary order
– but, however, calls for exercise of such a
discretion in a judicious manner and not as a
matter of course.

Order for bail bereft of any
cogent cannot be sustained.
In Prasanta Kumar Sarkar V. Ashis Chatterjee;
(2010) 14 SCC 496: (AIR 2011 SC 274)
9….It is trite that this Court does not, normally,
interfere with an order passed by the High Court
granting
or
rejecting
bail
to
the
accused.

However, it is equally incumbent upon the High
Court
to
exercise
its
discretion
judiciously,
cautiously, and strictly in compliance with the
basis principles laid down in a plethora of
decisions of this Court on the point.

It is well
9
Crl.Misc. No.6044/2022
settled that, amount other circumstances, the
factors to be borne in mind while considering an
application for bail are:
(i)Whether
there
is
any
prima
facie
or
reasonable ground to believe that the accused
committed the offence;
(ii)nature and gravity of the accusation;
(iii)severity of the punishment in the event of
conviction;
(iv) danger of the accused absconding or
fleeing, if released on bail;
(v)character, behaviour, means, position and
standing of the accused;
(vi)likelihood of the offence being repeated;
(vii) reasonable apprehension of the witnesses
being influenced;
and
(viii)danger, of course, of justice being thwarted
by grant of bail.
while granting or rejecting the bail to the accused it is
equally incumbent upon the Courts to exercise its discretion
judiciously, cautiously and strictly in compliance with the basic
principles laid in a plethora of decisions.
12. In the instant case while applying the law laid down
by the Hon’ble Supreme Court with the fact of the case, it is
clear
that
while
disposing
the
bail
petition
of
the
petitioner/accused No.1 involved in heinous offence, the Court
10
Crl.Misc. No.6044/2022
has to exercise its discretion in a judicial manner and not a
matter of coerce. The gravity of the offence and the manner,
has to how the crime has been executed has to be taken into
consideration. In the instant case prima facie it discloses that
the petitioner/accused No.1 being the husband of deceased in
collusion with accused No.2 and 3 has caused the death of
deceased-Smt.Ranjitha subjecting her to mental and physical
cruelty in demand of additional dowry and by having illicit
relationship with other women. There is sufficient chance that
he might abscond and shall not be available for trial. Further
the material witnesses, who are his relatives, might be
tampered by the petitioner/accused No.1, if he is enlarged on
bail. In the instant case very important fact that has to be noted
is the conduct of the petitioner regarding involvement of
committing the alleged offence, subjecting the deceasedSmt.Ranjitha to physical and mental cruelty in demand of dowry
and having illicit relationship with other women has to be
considered.

If the petitioner is released on bail at this stage,
the petitioner might abscond and would not be available for trial,
and by his undue influence tamper the prosecution witnesses.
13.Further as per the materials on record it is clear that
the petitioner was sent to judicial custody on 20.12.2021, and
he is in judicial custody for a period of more than six months is
not a valid ground to grant bail in his favour at this stage as per
the reasons and discussions made above.

Hence, there is
absolutely no ground made out by the petitioner/accused No.1
to grant bail to him as sought for in the petition. Considering
11
Crl.Misc. No.6044/2022
the gravity and seriousness of the offences alleged against him,
the petitioner/accused No.1 is not entitled for the relief as
sought.

Hence, this bail petition does not survive for any
consideration on merit. Accordingly, I answer point No.1 in the
negative.
14.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.439 of Cr.P.C. is hereby dismissed.
(Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer directly on
Computer, corrected by me and then pronounced in open Court on
this the 1st day of July, 2022)
(Manjunatha)
XLV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru.

12
Crl.Misc. No.6044/2022
Order pronounced in the open court
vide its separate order
ORDER
The bail petition filed by the petitioner
U/s.439 of Cr.P.C. is hereby dismissed.
(Manjunatha)
XLV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru.