1
Crl.Misc.No.6062/2022
IN THE COURT OF XLV ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS
JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY (CCH-46)
DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF AUGUST, 2022
PRESENT:
Sri Manjunatha, B.A., LL.B.,
XLV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru.
CRL.MISC. No.6062/2022
Petitioners
1.Mohammed Akramulla
S/o Mohammed Amanulla,
a/a 27 Yrs.,
2.Mohammed amanulla,
S/o Abdul Khalaq Sab,
a/a 60 yrs.,
3.Mrs. Musarath Ashrafi
W/o Mohammed Amanulla,
A/a 50 Yrs.,
All are r/a No.6,
Opp. Indian Petrol Bunk,
BTM Layout, Bangalore560 070.
(By Sri T.V. Tajpeer,
Advocate)
AND
Respondent
State by Bandepalya P.S.,
Bengaluru.

2
Crl.Misc.No.6062/2022
(By the learned Public
Prosecutor)
2.Nrs.Tasmiya Huseni
D/o M. Mansoor Ahmed @
Adil, R/a No.93
8th Cross, I Main,
Madeenanagar,
Mangammanapalya Main
Road, Behind Bismillah
Hotel, Bommanahalli,
Bengaluru-68.
ORDER ON BAIL PETITION FILED U/S.438
OF Cr.P.C.
The learned counsel for the 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.100/2022 in the interest of justice.
2. The brief facts of the bail petition is that on the basis of
the information of Smt.Tasmiya Huseni W/o first petitioner, the
Respondent
Police
have
registered
a
case
in
Crime
No.100/2022 against the Petitioners for an offences punishable
U/s.498A of IPC, sec.3 and 4 of DP Act, and Sec.4 of the
Muslim Women(Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019.
The Petitioner being accused persons apprehending their
3
Crl.Misc.No.6062/2022
arrest by the Respondent Police and constrained to file this
petition to grant bail.
3. The learned Public Prosecutor has filed objection in
detail 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 is granted bail then they
again will involve in causing mental and physical harassment to
the Complainant and also chance of destroying the evidence,
tamper
the
prosecution
witnesses
and
hamper
the
investigation. Accordingly, prayed for dismissal of the bail
petition.
4.Heard the arguments of both sides and perused
materials on record. In spite of sufficient opportunities provided,
the defacto complainant failed to appear nor filed her
objections.
5.The points that arises for consideration of this Court are
as under:
1.Whether the petitioner has made out
sufficient grounds for granting anticipatory bail
in his favour in Cr.No.100/2022 of Bandepalya
P.S., at this stage as sought for?

4
Crl.Misc.No.6062/2022
2. What order?
6.This Court has answered the above points are as under:
Point No.1 : In the Affirmative
Point No.2 : As per final order
for the following:
REASONS
7. Point No.1: On considering the papers on record, it is
evident to note that the respondent police have registered case
against the petitioners for the offences punishable U/s.498A of
IPC, Sec.3 and 4 of DP Act and Sec.4 of The Muslim
Women(Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019. The fact
that the petitioner No.1 is the husband and petitioners No.2 and
3 are the relatives of husband of the complainant-Smt.Tasmiya
Huseni, which is not in dispute.
8.It is alleged that the marriage of complainant was
solemnized with accused No.1 on 28.12.2020 as per the
customs prevails in their community, and at the time of marriage
on demand he received cash, and gold ornaments as dowry
from the parents of complainant as dowry. After the marriage
the accused No.1 to 3 subjected the complainant to both
physical and mental cruelty in demanding additional dowry of
Rs.10,00,000/- or her share in the property from her parental
5
Crl.Misc.No.6062/2022
house to solve their problems. Further it is the case of the
complainant that when she had been to her parental house on
the occasion of Ramzaan festival at that time the accused
persons have threatened her that without their demands, not to
return back to their house, and on 29.4.2022 the accused No.1
called the complainant to his house to give gifts on the occasion
of festival, and when she had been to the house of accused
No.1, the accused No.1 demanded her for additional dowry of
Rs.10,00,000/- when she refused for the same, the accused
No.1 insisted the complainant to return Mahar and Mangala
Sutra, and when she failed to return the same, the accused
picked up quarrel with her, as he was not interested with her,
and at 8.00 p.m. when complainant returning along her sisterin-law, the accused No.1 by pronouncing talaq ousted her from
the matrimonial house in order to annul the marriage.

Unable
to bear the physical and mental cruelty caused by the accused
persons, complainant constrained to file complaint against the
petitioners before respondent police.
9. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that they
have not committed any alleged offences, as contended by the
complainant. The complainant had filed false complaint, with an
intention to cause mental harassment to the petitioners. The
petitioners hails from a respectable family having deep roots in
6
Crl.Misc.No.6062/2022
the society without having any criminal antecedents. It is further
submitted they are ready to furnish surety to the satisfaction of
the Court on their release. Hence, they prayed to allow this
petition.
10. As against this the Learned Public Prosecutor filed a
detailed objections and during the course of her arguments
submitted that the investigation is still in progress and if they
are granted anticipatory on bail at this stage there is every
chance of petitioners to abscond from the jurisdiction of this
court, intimidate the complainant, and witnesses, tamper the
evidence and hamper the investigation. Hence, submitted that
the petitioners are not entitled to be released on bail.
11.On the basis of arguments of learned counsel for
petitioners and the learned Prosecutor, verified the FIR and
relevant case papers.

The offence alleged against the
petitioner is punishable U/s.498A of IPC, Sec.3 and 4 of DP Act
and Sec.4 of the Muslim Women(Protection of Rights on
marriage) Act, 2019 and the said offences are not punishable
with death or imprisonment for life. But the offence U/s.498A of
IPC is though non-bailable, it is exclusively triable by the
Magistrate. This Court complied the provisions of Sec.7(c) of
The Muslim Women(Protection of Rights on marriage) Act, 2019
by giving sufficient opportunities to the defacto complainant to
submit her objections regarding talak pronouncement.

By
7
Crl.Misc.No.6062/2022
analyzing the entire documents, it is found that there is a
matrimonial dispute between the complainant and petitioner
No.1.
12.It is pertinent to note that the Hon’ble High Court of
Karnataka
in
Crl.,
Pet.,
No.7123/2020
dated
30.11.2020(S. Mohammed Yahya Vs., State of Karnataka
and another)
has granted anticipatory bail for the accused,
who is alleged with an offence U/s.3 and 4 of The Muslim
Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019.
13.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. At this juncture I
would like to quote the dictum of law laid down in the decision
reported in (2011) 1 Supreme Court cases 694(Siddharam
Satlingappa Mhetre Vs., State of Maharashtra and others)
wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that :-
“Sec.438 of Cr.P.C., is not extraordinary in
the sense that
it should be invoked only
exceptional or rare cases – A great ignominy,
humiliation and disgrace is attached to arrest –
In cases where Court is of considered view that
accused has joined investigation and he is fully
8
Crl.Misc.No.6062/2022
co-operating with the investigating agency and is
not likely to abscond, in that event, custodial
interrogation should be avoided, and anticipatory
bail should be granted – exercise of said
jurisdiction
requires
maintaining
of
perfect
balance between two conflicting interests viz.,
sanctity or individual liberty and interest of
society.”
And also the dictum of law and guidelines laid down by
the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Gurbaksh Singh
Sibbia V., State of Punjab, (1980) 2 SCC 565: 1980 SCC
(Cri) 465 has to be taken into consideration.

“What is the quantum of punishment is not
much important on the other hand, the Courts
ought to consider such nature and gravity of the
accusation and the exact role of the accused
must be properly comprehended before arrest is
made. Further the antecedents of the applicant
including the fact as to whether the accused has
previously
conviction
undergone
by
a
Court
imprisonment
in
respect
of
on
any
cognizable offence, and the possibility of the
applicant to flee from justice is also to be
9
Crl.Misc.No.6062/2022
considered. The
possibility of the accused’s
likelihood to repeat similar or other offences and
where the accusations have been made only with
the object of injuring or humiliating the applicant
by arrest him or her has to be looked into. It is
equally important to note that impact of grant of
anticipatory bail particularly in cases of large
magnitude affecting a very large number of
people has to be taken into consideration. The
Hon’ble Supreme Court has clearly laid down
caution that the Courts must evaluate the entire
available material against the accused very
carefully and while considering the prayer for
grant of anticipatory bail.

While granting the
anticipatory bail the balance has to be struck
between two factors, namely, no prejudice should
be caused to the free, fair and full investigation
and there should be prevention of harassment,
humiliation and unjustified detention of
the
accused. While considering the objections of the
prosecution,
the
court
has
to
reasonable apprehension of tampering
witness
or
apprehension
of
threat
consider
of the
to
the
10
Crl.Misc.No.6062/2022
complainant at time of granting anticipatory bail.
Further the frivolity in prosecution should always
be considered while granting anticipatory bail.
Also order of anticipatory bail should not be
“blanket” in the sense that it should not enable
the accused to commit further offences and claim
relief. It should be confined to the offence or
incident, for which apprehension of arrest is
sought, in relation to a specific incident”.
14.By applying the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India, the present fact of the case has to be
analyze and considered. The certified copies of complaint and
FIR produced by the petitioners discloses that only after
pronouncement of talk on 29.04.2022 a complaint has been
lodged by the complainant-Smt. Tasmiya huseni, who is the wife
of petitioner No.1 at Bandepalya P.S., in Crime No.100/2022 at
9.6.2022 at 10.15 hours for an offences punishable U/s.498A of
IPC, Sec.3 and 4 of DP Act and Sec.3 and 4 of the Muslim
Women(Protection of Rights on marriage) Act, 2019.

The
petitioners have also produced the Copy of Nikhanama,
photographs, adhaar cards etc., The documents would
discloses that there is a matrimonial dispute between the
petitioner and complainant. Admittedly, the petitioner No.1 is the
11
Crl.Misc.No.6062/2022
husband of the alleged complainant-Smt.Tasmiya Huseni, and
petitioners No.2 and 3 are the relatives of husband of the
defacto complainant-Tasmiya Huseni, against whom the filing of
the complaint is sufficient to draw apprehension in the minds of
the petitioner regarding his arrest in non-bailable offence.
15.Whether the petitioners have committed the alleged
offences as contended by the complainant is a matter, which
has to be decided only at the time of full-fledged trial. At this
juncture, when the petitioners are ready to abide by the terms
and conditions imposed by the court and when they are ready
to offer due and adequate surety for their release on bail, then
this court is of the opinion that no purpose will be served by
allowing the respondent police to apprehend the petitioners and
to keep them in custody. 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. Hence, under these
circumstances, the petitioners have made out sufficient ground
for granting anticipatory bail in their favour at this stage as
12
Crl.Misc.No.6062/2022
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.
13. 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 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 one surety for the like sum to the
satisfaction of the concerned I.O.,/Magistrate in the
event of their arrest in the case in Crime No.100/2022
of Bandepalya P.S., subject to following conditions:1.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.
Further the Petitioner No.1 shall give his
attendance before the concerned I.O., on every
Sunday of the month in between 10.00 a.m. and
13
Crl.Misc.No.6062/2022
2.00 p.m. till filing of charge sheet or further
orders whichever is earlier.
2.The
Petitioners
shall
surrender
before
the
concerned Police within 15 days from the date of
this order without fail.

Further the Magistrate
shall have to comply Sec.7 of Muslim Women
(Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019
before granting bail.
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.,
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 in future.
6.They shall appear before the concerned Magistrate
Court as and when directed.

14
Crl.Misc.No.6062/2022
7.They shall not leave the jurisdiction of concerned
Court without the prior permission,
8.They shall not change their place of residence
outside the jurisdiction of concerned Court
without prior intimation, and
9.They shall furnish the notarized copies of their
residential id address proof.
(Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer directly on Computer, corrected by me
and then pronounced in open Court on this the 2nd day of August, 2022)
(Manjunatha)
XLV Addl. CC & SJ, Bengaluru.

15
Crl.Misc.No.6062/2022
Order pronounced in the open court
vide its separate order
ORDER
The bail petition filed by the petitioners
U/s.438 of Cr.P.C. is hereby allowed.
(Manjunatha)
XLV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru.

16
Crl.Misc.No.6062/2022