KABC010089682024
IN THE COURT OF XLV ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS
JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY (CCH-46)
DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF APRIL, 2024
PRESENT:
Sri. Manjunatha, B.A., LL.B.,
XLV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.
CRL.MISC. No.3175/2024
Petitioners
1.Mohammed Tarique Shariff,
S/o Late Mohammed Ismail Shariff,
a/a 37 Yrs.,
r/a No.8, 4th Cross, Flat No.202,
Takt Mallige Apartments,
bhoopasandra New Extension,
Sanjaynagar, near 60 Feet Road
Church, RMV Extension, 1st Stage,
Bengaluru-560 094.
2.Smt. Anees Fathima
W/o Late Mohammed Ismail Shariff,
a/a 64 Yrs.,
r/a Flat No.202,
Takt Mallige Apartments, 4th Cross,
New Extension Bhoopasandra,
Bengaluru-560 094.
3.Smt. Neha Faizah @ Noor Faizah,
D/o late Mohammed Ismial Shariff,
W/o Syed Mohammed Ali,
a/a 35 Yrs.,
r/a No.41, Ground Floor, 5th Cross,
Bhoopasandra, VTC,
2
Crl.Misc.No.3175/2024
RMV Extension II Stage,
Bengaluru-560 094.
(By Sri/Smt: A. S. Kulkarni, Adv.,)
AND
Respondent State by North Zone Women
P.S.,
Bengaluru City.
(By the learned Public Prosecutor)
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.7/2024 in the interest of justice.
2. The brief facts of the bail petition is that on the basis of
the information of Smt.Mizba Ahmed, a/a 32 yrs., w/o petitioner
No.1, the Respondent Police have registered a case in Crime
No.7/2024 against the Petitioners for the offence punishable U/
s.498A r/w Sec.34 of IPC . The Petitioners being accused
apprehending their arrest at the hands of 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 are granted bail then they
again will involve in causing mental and physical harassment to
the Complainant and also chance of destroying the evidence,
3
Crl.Misc.No.3175/2024
tamper the prosecution witnesses and hamper the investigation.
Accordingly, prayed for dismissal of the bail petition.
4. Heard the arguments. Perused the materials on record.
5. The following points are arises for consideration of this
Court:
1. Whether the Petitioners have made out sufficient
grounds for granting Anticipatory bail in their
favour in Cr. No.7/2024 of North Zone Women
P. S., at this stage as sought for?
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 a
Crime No.7/2024 against the Petitioners for the offences
punishable U/s.498A r/w sec.34 of IPC and Sec.3 and 4 of DP
Act, on the Complaint of Smt.Mizba Ahmed, a/a 32 Yrs.,
Admittedly, the petitioner No.1 is the husband and petitioners
No.2 and 3 are the relatives of the husband of the alleged
complainant-Smt.Mizba Ahmed, a/a 32 Yrs., which is not in
dispute.
8.It is the case of the complainant that on 27.07.2016 the
marriage of accused No.1 was solemnized with the complainant
and out of the wedlock they blessed with two children. The
4
Crl.Misc.No.3175/2024
accused No.1 at the instigation of accused No.2 and 3
subjected her to physical and mental cruelty. 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.The contention of petitioners is that they are innocent of
the offences alleged and there is absolutely no case made out
against them for the alleged offence. But, as pointed out by the
learned Public Prosecutor, investigation is not yet completed, at
this stage if the bail is granted in favour of the petitioners, then
they may abscond and also tamper the prosecution witnesses
and hamper the investigation, and this stage when investigation
is under process, this Court cannot come to the conclusion that
the petitioners are innocent of the offence alleged against them.
Hence, at this stage the contention of petitioners that they are
innocent of the offences alleged against them does not stand
for consideration. It is not desirable on the part of this Court at
this stage to come to the conclusion that the petitioners are
innocent of the offences alleged against them.
10. It is pertinent to note that even for the sake of
argument, it is accepted that there is prima-facie case against
the Petitioners for the offence punishable U/s.498A r/w Sec.34
of IPC, the said offence is not punishable with death or
imprisonment for life. But the offence U/s.498A of IPC is though
non-bailable, but it is exclusively triable by the Magistrate.
11.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. The certified
5
Crl.Misc.No.3175/2024
copies complaint and FIR produced by the petitioners discloses
that a complaint has been lodged by the complainant, at
North Zone Women P.S., in Crime No.7/2024 on 27.03.2024 at
10.45 hours for the offences as alleged. The documents would
discloses that there is a matrimonial dispute between accused
No.1 and the complainant. Admittedly, the petitioner No.1 is the
husband and petitioners No.2 and 3 are the relatives of the
husband of the alleged complainant – Smt.Mizba Ahmed, a/a
32 Yrs., against whom the filing of the complaint is sufficient to
draw apprehension in the minds of the petitioners regarding
their arrest in non-bailable offence.
12.Whether the petitioners have committed the alleged
offence 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 ground made out by the
prosecution to reject this bail petition. Hence, under these
circumstances, the petitioners have made out sufficient ground
6
Crl.Misc.No.3175/2024
for granting anticipatory bail in their favour at this stage as
prayed for as there exist reason to believe that they may be
arrested in non-bailable offence. 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.7/2024 of
North Zone Women 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 mark his
attendance once in a month, i.e., first Sunday of
every month in between 10.00 a.m. and 2.00
p.m. before the I.O., till filing of final report 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.
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
7
Crl.Misc.No.3175/2024
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 during the pendency of case,
6.They shall appear before the concerned Magistrate
Court as and when directed.
7.They shall not leave the jurisdiction of the
Bangalore City without the prior permission.
8.They shall not change his place of residence
outside the jurisdiction of concerned Court
without prior intimation.
9 They shall also furnish the notarized copy of their
residential id address proof.
10.In the event of violation of any of the above
conditions, the above bail shall stand
automatically canceled.
(Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer directly on Computer, corrected by me
and then pronounced in open Court on this the 8th day of April, 2024)
(Manjunatha)
XLV Addl. CC & SJ, Bengaluru.

MANJUNATH
RAMA NAIK
Digitally signed by
MANJUNATH RAMA NAIK
Date: 2024.04.25 17:06:54
+0530
8
Crl.Misc.No.3175/2024
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. CC & SJ, Bengaluru.

9
Crl.Misc.No.3175/2024