KABC010083452024 IN THE COURT OF XLV ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY (CCH-46) DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF APRIL, 2024 PRESENT: Sri. Manjunatha, B.A., LL.B., XLV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru. CRL.MISC. No.2952/2024 Petitioners 1.Nagendra Jaipal Jakannavar S/o Late Jaipal Jakkanavar, a/a 43 Yrs., 2.Suvarna Jakannavar, W/o late Jaipal Jakkannavar, a/a 68 Yrs., Both are r/o Suvarna Niwas, Plot No.5, RS No.100, CTS No.4304, 8th Cross, Bhagyanagar, Angol, Belagavi, Karnataka-590006. 3.Archana Gommatesh Pattankude W/o Gommatesh Babasaheb Pattankude, a/a 45 Yrs., r/a no.36, Brahmanath Nilaya, 8th Cross, manjunathnagar, Kalkere, Ramamurthynagar, Bangalore-560 016. (By Sri/Smt: Indra Dhanush, Adv.,) AND Crl.Misc.No.2952/2024 Respondent State by Basavanagudi 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.52/2024 in the interest of justice.

2. The brief facts of the bail petition is that on the basis of

the information of Smt.Shruthi Jain Parshwanath, a/a 34 yrs., w/o accused No.1, the Respondent Police have registered a case against the Petitioners and another in Crime No.52/2024 for the offences punishable U/s.498A, 354A and 323 of IPC and Sec.3 and 4 of DP Act. The Petitioners being accused No.2 to 4 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, 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. Crl.Misc.No.2952/2024

5. The following points are arises for consideration of this

Court: 1.WhetherthePetitionershavemadeoutsufficient grounds for granting Anticipatory bail in their favour in Cr. No.52/2024 of Basavanagudi WomenP.S.,atthisstageassoughtfor? 2.Whatorder?

6. This court has answered the above points are as

under: PointNo.1 : IntheAffirmative PointNo.2 : Asperfinalorder forthefollowing:- R E A S O N S

7. Point No.1: On considering the papers on record, it is

evident to note that the Respondent Police have registered a Crime No.52/2024 against the Petitioners and another for the offences punishable U/s.498A, 354A and 323 of IPC and Sec.3 and 4 of DP Act., on the Complaint of Smt.Shurthi Jain Parshwanath, a/a 34 Yrs., Admittedly, the petitioners No.1 to 3 are the relatives of the husband of the alleged complainant- Smt.Shruthi Jain Parashwanath, which is not in dispute. 8.It is the case of the complainant that on 15.11.2018 the marriage of accused No.1 was solemnized with the complainant, and at the time of marriage on demand the accused persons received gold and silver articles as dowry from the parents of complainant. The accused No.1 subjected the complainant to physical and mental cruelty in demanding to get house hold articles from her father by abusing and Crl.Misc.No.2952/2024 assaulting her. The accused No.1 was impotent failed to perform sexual acts and harassed her mentally, and also demanded the complainant to get him a car and house through her father. In the year 2019 the accused No.3 harassed and demanded her to get gold chain and car for Deepavali, the accused No.4 used to interfere with the marital life of complainant by creating problems. On 31.08.2020 the accused No.1 left the complainant at her parents house and went to Finland and demanded for car, house and money through phone and told only if they get him house he will be back to India or he would not and would not maintain any relationship. After attending the death of her father-in-law she stayed there for few days, during that time the accused No.2 went to the room of complainant and touched her body by causing sexual abuse on her. The accused No.1 without returning to India demanding for additional dowry through phone. In the month of May 2022 when complainant along with her family members had been to Belgavi to meet accused No.3, at that time the accused No.3 told that accused No.1 will not come back to India, and sent them back and harassed the complainant mentally and physically. 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 Crl.Misc.No.2952/2024 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 offences punishable U/s.498A, 354A and 323 of IPC and Sec.3 and 4 of DP Act., 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 copies complaint and FIR produced by the petitioners discloses that a complaint has been lodged by the complainant, at Basavanagudi Women P.S., in Crime No.52/2024 on 11.03.2024 at 18.00 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 petitioners are the relatives of the husband of the complainant- Smt. Shruthi Jain Parshwanath, against whom the filing of the Crl.Misc.No.2952/2024 complaint is sufficient to draw apprehension in the minds of the petitioners regarding their arrest in non-bailable offence. Keeping in mind, the allegations of the complainant and other aspects, this anticipatory bail petition has to be considered. The allegations are made out in the complaint is against accused No.1. The allegations made against petitioners is not specific, whether the petitioners involved in committing the alleged offences with common intention is a matter to be tried and decided in due course. Bail cannot be refused merely on the ground that the petitioners are relatives to accused No.1 when the alleged offences are committed. 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 Crl.Misc.No.2952/2024 out sufficient ground 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:- O R D E R 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.52/2024 of Basavanagudi 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. 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 30 days from the date of this order without fail. Crl.Misc.No.2952/2024 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 during the pendency of case, 6.They shall appear before the concerned Magistrate Court as and when directed. 7.They shall also furnish the notarized copy of their residential id address proof. 8.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 16th day of April, 2024) (Manjunatha) XLV Addl. CC & SJ, Bengaluru. Digitally signed by MANJUNATH MANJUNATHRAMA NAIK RAMA NAIK Date: 2024.04.27 15:19:34 +0530 Crl.Misc.No.2952/2024 Order pronounced in the open court vide its separate order O R D E R The bail petition filed by the petitioners U/s.438 of Cr.P.C. is hereby allowed. (Manjunatha) XLV Addl. CC & SJ, Bengaluru. Crl.Misc.No.2952/2024