KABC010078342024 IN THE COURT OF XLV ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY (CCH-46) DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF APRIL, 2024 PRESENT: Sri. Manjunatha, B. A., LL.B., XLV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru. CRL.MISC. No.2801/2024 Petitioners 1.Nishanth Sachithanandam S/o Sachithanandam Subramaniam, a/a 33 yrs., 2.Sachithanandam Subramaniam, S/o Subramaniam, a/a 65 Yrs., 3.Smt. Umadevi Sachithanandam W/o Sachithanandam, a/a 57 yrs., all are r/a No.273, 2nd Floor, 16th Cross, Sector 6 HSR Layout, Bengaluru-560 102. (By Sri/Smt: Ko Vijayakumar, adv.) AND Respondent State by HSR Layout P.S., Bengaluru. (By the learned Public Prosecutor) Crl.Misc.No.2801/2024 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. praying for an order to grant anticipatory bail in their favour and direct the respondent police to release them on bail in the event of their arrest in any case to be registered on the complaint of Smt.R. Nivedita, who is the wife of petitioner No.1, in the interest of justice.

2. The contention of petitioners is that there is

matrimonial dispute between petitioner No.1 and his wife- Smt.Nevidita. Hence, there is chance of Smt.Nivedita lodging of complaint to the respondent police against the petitioners for the offences punishable U/s.498A of IPC and Sec.3 and 4 of DP Act. Now the petitioners are apprehending their arrest by respondent police. Hence, the petitioners are constrained to file this petition and thereby they have prayed for allowing the petition.

3. The learned Public Prosecutor has filed objection to

this petition submitting that there is no criminal case registered against the petitioners and therefore, there is no question of granting anticipatory bail to the petitioners. Hence, the learned Prosecutor has prayed for dismissal of the petition . 4.Heard the arguments on both sides and perused the materials on record. 5.The the points that arises for consideration of this Court are: 1.Whether the petitioners have made out sufficient ground for granting anticipatory Crl.Misc.No.2801/2024 bail in their favour at this stage as sought for? 2.Whatorder?

6. This Court has answered the above points are as

under: PointNo.1: IntheNegative PointNo.2: Asperfinalorder forthefollowing: R E A S O N S 7.Point No.1: The petition averments clearly go to show that there is apprehension on the part of petitioners that they will be arrested by the respondent Police if any case is registered against them on the complaint of Smt.Nivedita, who is the wife of petitioner No.1, but there is no documents to show that there is apprehension of arrest of petitioners by the respondent police.

8. Generally the registration of criminal case is not a

condition precedent for availing benefit of anticipatory bail by the concerned accused persons, but the petitioners have to produce sufficient materials to show that even though there is no FIR/NCR is registered against them at this stage there is an apprehension that a case as alleged U/s. 498A of IPC and Sec.3 and 4 of DP Act, will be registered by the respondent police, causing apprehension of their arrest. As per the averments of the petition, it is alleged that Smt.Nivedita married petitioner No.1 on 14.05.2023. It is the averments of the petition that as there was a matrimonial dispute between petitioner No.1 and his wife Smt.Nivedita, due to which the his Crl.Misc.No.2801/2024 wife – Smt.Nivedita, may file complaint before the respondent police stations against petitioners. To substantiate their contentions, petitioners have marriage invitation card and adhaar cards etc., On perusal of the petition averments and documents it is clear that though there is a matrimonial dispute between the petitioner No.1 and his wifeSmt.Nivedita , but till date no complaint is registered by the wife of petitioner No.1 in respondent police station against the petitioners nor any NCR has been initiated based on the complaint of wife of first petitioner-Smt.Nivedita. Further from this fact it is also clear that though there exist a matrimonial dispute between the petitioner No.1 and his wife-Smt.Nivedita, but it is not a criteria to grant anticipatory bail unless the petitioners satisfies that there is an apprehension of arrest by the respondent police based on the complaint of wife of first petitioner-Smt. Nivedita. In the absence of any legal action against the petitioners by the wife of petitioner No.1 at respondent police station, the contention of the petitioners that there is an apprehension of their arrest on the alleged offences as mentioned in the petition by the respondent police cannot be taken into consideration. It is equally important to note that till this date no criminal case has been initiated against the petitioners by the wife of first petitionerSmt.Nivedita in the respondent police station, nor any NCR has been registered on the basis of the complaint of wife of first petitioner-Smt.Nivedita. In the absence of any complaint by the wife of first petitioner- Smt.Nivedita in respondent police station and registering of NCR on the said complaint the Court is not satisfied that there Crl.Misc.No.2801/2024 exist an apprehension of arrest by the respondent police cannot be considered at this stage unless there is NCR initiated against the petitioners. 9.At this juncture it has to be taken into consideration that after receiving of the complaint, and before registration of FIR, it is the duty of the police officials to register NCR and issue notice for both the parties for conciliation regarding the matrimonial dispute. Further it is equally important to note that only after the conciliation talks, considering the fact and situation of the case, the respondent police may register FIR. The issuing of notice U/s.41(1) of Cr.P.C., calling for conciliation of the petitioners on the complaint of wife of first petitioner- Smt.Nivedita may be sufficient to hold that there is an apprehension of arrest of the petitioners. The respondent police have to follow the guidelines laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in ruling reported in (2014) 8 SCC 273 (Arnesh Kumar Vs., State of Bihar and another, in which the Hon'ble Supreme Court has clearly laid down the dictum of law and guidance to the police officials that; “they shall not arrest the accused unnecessarily without proper counseling and only on satisfaction that the persons have committed the offence the police officials to prevent such persons further in committing any offence or for proper investigation of the case, or prevent the accused from causing the evidenceoftheoffenceoftodisappear ortamper with such evidence in any manner, or to prevent such person from making any inducement, threat or Crl.Misc.No.2801/2024 promise to a witness, so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or the police officer, or unless the accused person isarrested, if present in the court whenever required cannot be ensured. It is alsoclearlylaiddownthatbefore arrestthefirstpolice officer should have reason to believe on basis of information and materials that the accused has committed the offence. Apart from this the police officer has to be satisfied further that the arrest is necessary for one or more purposes envisaged by sub-clauses (a) to (e) of clause 1 of Sec.41 Cr.P.C., In all cases were arrest of the persons is not required U/s.41(1) Cr.P.C., police officer is required to issue noticedirectingtheaccused toappearbefore himata specified time and place. The law obliges such an accused to appear before police officers and if mandatesthatifsuchanaccusedcomplieswithterms of notice, he shall not be arrested, unless for reasons to be recorded, police officer is of the opinion that the arrestisnecessary”. By applying the above dictum of law to the facts of the present case it is found that in the instant case no complaint has been registered till date nor any notice U/s.41(1) of Cr.P.C., has been issued by the respondent police on the complaint of wife of first petitionerSmt.Nivedita till date. In view of the same the contention of the petitioners that there is an apprehension by the petitioners that wife of first petitioner-Smt.Nivedita, might register false criminal case against them on the offences Crl.Misc.No.2801/2024 alleged in the petition, and they may be arrested by police on false allegations cannot be considered. 10.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 Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has clearly held that blanket Order of Anticipatory Bail should not be generally passed unless specific event and facts is discloses by the applicant in order to enable the Court to arrive at judicial conclusion. Further the Court must take care to specify the offence or offences in respect of which alone the order will be effective. The power should not be exercised in vacuum. In the instant case unless a complaint is filed the offences alleged against the petitioners cannot be ascertained. The allegation alleged in the petition for which anticipatory bail is sought cannot be considered without any complaint by wife of first petitioner-Smt.Nivedita, since the offences alleged are only imagined by the petitioners. In AIR 1980 SUPREME COURT 1632 (Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia etc., V. The State of Punjab and Sarbajit Singh and anotherv.,ThestateofPunjab) at caption (E) is as follows: (E) Criminal P.C.(2 of 1974) S.438 _ Anticipatory bail – Grant of -'Blanket order' of anticipatory bail should not generallybepassed. A 'blanket order' of anticipatory bail should not generally be passed. this flows from the very language of the section which requires the applicant to show that he has"reason to believe that he may be arrested. A belief can be said to be found on Crl.Misc.No.2801/2024 reasonable grounds only of there is something tangible to go by on the basis of which it can be said that the applicant's apprehension that he may be arrested is genuine. that is why, normally, a direction should not issue under S.438(1) to the effect that the applicant shall be released on bail "whenever arrested for whichever offence whatsoever' That is what is meant by a 'blanket order' of anticipatory bail, anorder whichserves asablankettocover orprotect any and every kind of allegedly unlawful activity, in fact any eventuality, likely or unlikely regarding which, no concrete information can possible be had. the rationale of a direction under S.438(1) is the belief of the applicant founded on reasonable grounds that he may be arrested for a non-bailable offence. It is unrealistic to expect the applicant to draw up his application with the meticulousness of a pleading in a civil case and such is not requirement of the section. Butspecificeventsandfactsmustbedisclosedbythe applicant in order to enable the court to judge of the reasonableness of hisbelief, the existence of whichis the sine qua non of the exercise of power conferred bythesection. Apart from the fact that the very language of the stature compels this construction, there is an important principle involved in the insistence that facts,onthebasisofwhichadirection underS.438(1) is sought, must be clear and specific, not vague and Crl.Misc.No.2801/2024 general. It is only by the observance of that principle that a possible conflict between the right of an individual to his liberty and the right of the police to investigate into crimes reported to them can be avoided. A blanket order of anticipatory bail is bound to cause serious interference with both the right and the duty of the police in the matter of investigation because, regardless ofwhat kind ofoffence isalleged to have been committed by the applicant and when, an order of bail which comprehends allegedly unlawful activity of any description whatsoever, will prevent the police from arresting the applicant even if he commits, say, a murder in the presence of the public. Such an order can then become a charter of lawlessness and a weapon to stifle prompt investigationintooffenceswhichcouldnotpossiblybe predicated when the order was passed. Therefore, thecourtwhichgrants anticipatory bailmusttakecare to specify the offence or offences in respect of which alone the order will be effective. The power should notbeexercisedinavacuum." At this stage by applying the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India to the facts of the case it is found that in the absence of relevant materials the contention of the petitioners that they would be arrested for the non-bailable offence, as alleged in the petition cannot be considered. Crl.Misc.No.2801/2024 11.Further in AIR 2008 Supreme Court 218(Naresh Kumar Yadav Vs., Ravindra Kumar and others), where in the Hon'ble Supreme Court has clearly laid down the dictum of law that while granting anticipatory bail the court should satisfied that the applicant-petitioners have produced sufficient material to show that there is a strong reason to believe that they may be arrested in a non-bailable offence. Mere “fear” is not 'belief' for which reason it is not enough for the applicant to show that they had some sort of vague apprehension that some one is going to make an accusation against them in pursuance of which they may be arrested. 12.It is equally important to consider that there might be a chance that no criminal case would be filed by the wife of first petitioner-Smt.Nivedita, and it is not certain as to what offence and in which jurisdiction the wife of first petitionerSmt.Nivedita might lodge the complaint against the petitioners. The petitioners have to convince the court to the full satisfaction that there is an apprehension of their arrest on the offences alleged in the petition by the respondent police. In the absence of relevant documents the contention of the petitioners that there is apprehension of their arrest merely on the ground of matrimonial dispute is not sufficient to believe that a non- bailable offence would be alleged against the petitioners by the wife of first petitioner-Smt.Nivedita, as contended in the petition and they would be arrested by the respondent police on the complaint of wife of first petitioner-Smt.Nivedita, cannot be taken into consideration. In view of the same without reasonable apprehension, the court cannot pass blanket order. Crl.Misc.No.2801/2024 From the above reasons and discussions, the petitioners have failed to submit reasonable ground regarding grant of anticipatory bail in their favour, hence, the question of granting anticipatory bail in this case does not arise for consideration. 13.There is no any special ground made out by the petitioners to allow this petition and to grant bail in their favour, earlier to registration of the complaint of the wife of first petitionerSmt.Nivedita by the respondent police for the offences punishable U/s. 498A of IPC and Sec.3 and 4 of DP Act as alleged in the petition. The contention of the learned Public Prosecutor, there is absolutely no sufficient reason put forth by the petitioners to grant anticipatory bail in their favour as sought for in the petition, even though no case is registered against petitioners on the complaint of wife of petitioner No.1 is accepted. From the above reasons and discussions, by considering the documents and all the facts, there is absolutely no any special ground made out by the petitioners to grant bail to them as sought for in the petition. 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:- O R D E R The bail petition filed by the petitioners U/s.438 of Cr.P.C. is hereby dismissed. Crl.Misc.No.2801/2024 It is needless to say that the concerned police bound to follow the guidelines of Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in (2014) 8 SCC 273 (Arnesh Kumar Vs., State of Bihar and another) if any complaint filed against the petitioners. (Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer directly on Computer, corrected by me and then pronounced in open Court on this the 6th day of April, 2024) (Manjunatha) XLV ACC & SJ, Bengaluru. Digitally signed by MANJUNATH MANJUNATH RAMA NAIK RAMA NAIK Date: 2024.04.25 16:16:29 +0530 Crl.Misc.No.2801/2024 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 dismissed. (Manjunatha) XLV ACC & SJ, Bengaluru.