IN THE COURT OF LXXI ADDL. CITY CIVIL &
SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY (CCH-72)
DATED THIS THE 29 th DAY OF JUNE, 2022
PRESENT:
Smt. K.S.JYOTHISHREE, B.Com, L.L.B.
LXXI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru.
CRL.MISC.No.6009/2022
Petitioners
1. Shanthamma,
W/o Narasimha Murthy,
Aged about 56 years,
R/at No.1977, 9th Block,
Sir M.V.Layout,
Mallathahalli, Bengaluru.
2.Smt. Vinutha,
W/o Deepak T.L,
Aged about 32 years.
3. Deepak T.L,
S/o Lokeshappa T.S,
Aged about 34 years.
4.Manjula @ V. Manju,
D/o M.Venu,
Aged about 29 years.
Both the above are R/at
Poornima Jewellery
Works, Nr.SBI Bank,
Shettihalli Mainroad,
Kumvempurnagar,
Tumakuru.

2
Crl.Misc.No.6009/2022
(By Sri. Raghavendra.C,
Adv.)
AND
Respondent State of Karnataka
Basaveshwaranagar P S,
Bangalore.
(By the learned Public
Prosecutor)
ORDER ON BAIL APPLICATION FILED U/S.438
OF Cr.P.C.
This bail application is filed by the petitioners
under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. praying to grant an order
of anticipatory bail in the event of their arrest in
Crime No.259/2021 for the offence punishable U/s.
498A, 504, 506 r/w 34 of IPC and Sec.3 & 4 of DP
Act.
2. The facts are as under:
The complainant is the legally wedded wife of
one Naveen Kumar. He was working at Toyota
Kirloskar Company. The complainant is an employee
in BESCOM. The petitioner No.1 is a mother-in-law,
3
Crl.Misc.No.6009/2022
petitioner No.2 is sister-in-law and petitioner No.3 is
husband
of
petitioner
No.2.

After
2016,
the
petitioners started to harass the complainant and
treated her with cruelty. They demanded her salary
and Rs.30 Lakh as dowry.
complainant
gave
birth
to
In the meantime, the
female
child.

On
05.05.2021, the husband of the complainant died due
to Covid-19. Thereafter, the petitioners came to her
house, assaulted with hands, demanded to pay death
benefits of her husband and forcibly got her signature
on several documents. The petitioners also attempted
to kill her and threatened with dire consequences.
3. Grounds for bail:
1. The petitioners are innocents.
2. Soon after the marriage, the complainant
and her husband were living separately.
3. At no point of time, the complainant stayed
with the petitioners.
4. After the death of Naveen Kumar, the
complainant took over the affairs and 60% of
death benefit. The complainant harassed the
petitioner No.1 for property and insurance
4
Crl.Misc.No.6009/2022
claim. So, the petitioner No.1 had filed
complaint before Jnanabharathi Police and
which was registered as NCR.
5. The petitioner No.1 has filed O.S.154/2022
seeking for partition of property belong to her
son Naveen Kumar.
6. The petitioners are ready to abide by the
conditions to be imposed by the court.
With these contentions, they have requested to
allow the application.
4. The learned Public Prosecutor has filed the
objections and re-iterated the complaint averments.
There are prima facie materials against the petitioners
to reject the bail. If the bail application is allowed, the
petitioners may put threat to the complainant and her
parents.

Hence,
prayed
for
dismissal
of
the
application.
5. Heard.
6. Now the points that arise for my consideration
are:
1. Whether the petitioners have made
out sufficient grounds to grant
anticipatory bail ?

5
Crl.Misc.No.6009/2022
2. What order?
7.

My
findings
on
the
above
points
are
hereunder:
Point No.1:
Point No.2:
In the Affirmative
As per final order,
for the following:
R EAS O N S
8. Point No.1: It appears that the relationship
between the complainant and petitioners is not good.
As per the complainant, her husband is no more and
the petitioners treated her with cruelty. On the other
hand,
the
petitioners
have
contended
that
the
complainant abused and assaulted the petitioner No.1
for property and insurance claim. They have further
submitted that the petitioner No.1 has filed suit for
partition claiming a share in the property of her son.
9. It appears that I.O. has commenced the
investigation,
conducted
mahazar,
recorded
the
statement of witnesses and completed the major part
6
Crl.Misc.No.6009/2022
of the investigation. The involvement of petitioners is
yet to be proved. The alleged offences are not
punishable with death or imprisonment for life. They
are to be tried before learned Magistrate. Hence, there
is absolutely no reason to deny benefit of anticipatory
bail to the petitioners at this stage. Consequently, the
point No.1 is answered in the affirmative.
10. Point No.2: From the discussion made
herein above, it is clear that this petition deserves to
be allowed. In the result, therefore, I proceed to pass
the following:
ORD ER
This bail application filed by the
petitioners under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. is
hereby allowed.
The respondent police is hereby directed
to release the petitioners in the event of their
arrest in Crime No.259/2021 for the offence
punishable U/s. 498A, 504, 506 r/w 34 of
IPC and Sec.3 & 4 of DP Act, subject to the
following conditions:
7
Crl.Misc.No.6009/2022
1. The petitioners shall execute personal
bond for Rs.50,000/- each with like
sum surety.
2. The petitioners shall not threaten the
complainant and other witnesses.
(Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer directly on the computer,
corrected by me and then pronounced in open Court on this the 29th day
of June, 2022)
(K.S.JYOTHISHREE)
LXXI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge
Bengaluru.