KABC010089722024
IN THE COURT OF XLV ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS
JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY (CCH-46)
DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF APRIL, 2024
PRESENT:
Sri Manjunatha, B. A., LL.B.,
XLV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.
CRL.MISC. No.3177/2024
Petitioners
1.T. S. Prakash,
S/o T. G. Somegowda,
a/a 41 yrs.,
r/a No.4, Dr. Venkagaswamy
Reddy Buidling, Konappana
Agrahara, Electronic City,
Bengaluru-560 100.
2.T. G. Somegowda,
S/o Late Geddegowda,
a/a 70 Yrs.,
3.Smt. Lilithamma
W/o T. G. Somegowda,
a/a 69 Yrs.,
both are r/a Adhishakthi Nagara,
Ramapura, Chikkamagaluru-577
133.
4.Smt. Rekha @ Firdous,
W/o nayaz ulla, a/a 45 yrs.,
r/a No.59/2, 11th Main,
Shamanna Reddy Layout,
Viratnagara,
2
Crl.Misc.No.3177/2024
Bengaluru-560 068.
(By Sri/Smt: B. N. Anjankumar,
Advocate)
AND
Respondents
State by Parappana Agrahara
P.S., Bangalore.
(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
petitions 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 Crime
No.178/2024 in the interest of justice.
2. On the basis of the information of complainant-Smt.
Chandrakala, a/a 46 Yrs., the Respondent Police have
registered crime in FIR No.178/2024 against the Petitioners for
the offence punishable U/s.306 r/w Sec.34 of IPC.

The
Petitioners being accused No.1 to 4 as per the FIR
apprehending their arrest by the Respondent Police. Therefore,
the Petitioners have constrained to file this petition to grant bail.
3. The learned Public Prosecutor has filed objection in
detail along with the report of I.O., by reiterating the contents of
the Complaint and contended that these bail petitions are not
maintainable in law or on facts of the case. Further, she has
reiterated the contents of complaint and also contended that if
Petitioners are granted bail then they may involve in causing
mental and physical harassment to the Complainant and also
chance of destroying the evidence and hamper the witnesses
and has prayed for dismissal of the bail petitions.

3
Crl.Misc.No.3177/2024
4. Heard the arguments on both sides and perused the
materials on record.
5. The following points that 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.178/2024 of Parappana
Agrahara 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 Negative
Point No. 2 :
As per final order
for the following:-
REASONS
7. Point No. 1 :
The documents produced by the
Petitioners discloses that a case was registered against the
Petitioners in crime No.178/2024 of Parappana Agrahara P.S.,
for the offences punishable U/s.306 r/w Sec.34 of IPC on the
complaint of Complainant-Smt. Chandrakala, a/a 46 Yrs., N. G.
Latha, a/a 42 yrs.,
8.It is the case of the complainant that about five years
back the marriage of accused No.1 was solemnized with the
sister of complainant by name Hemvathi. After the marriage
they started to residing together, the parents of accused No.1
have not agreed for the said marriage, the accused No.1
addicted to consume alcohol, gambling etc., and become
debtor, to clear the same, deceased-Hemavathi had borrowed
4
Crl.Misc.No.3177/2024
loan from other and given to the accused No.1, and also given
her chit fund amount.

Since four months the accused No.1
deserted he sister of complainant, and put her mobile number
to block list. By feeling her and disgusting, and abetment to die
on 29.03.20224 committed suicide by hanging by leaving death
note that the accused persons are the route cause of her death.
It is the case of the complainant that the cause of death of
deceased-Smt.Hemvathi was due to the abetment of the
accused No.1 to 4 who subjected her to physical and mental
harassment.

Accordingly,
complainant
has lodged
the
complaint before the respondent police against the accused
persons.
9.It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that there is
no intention or motive specifically attributed to the petitioners,
only on suspicious ground the case has been registered against
the petitioners on the false complaint of informant. It is also
contended that though there is no averment in the complaint
regarding the abetment by the petitioners and in spite of the
same, they have been falsely implicated with a sole intention to
harass and humiliating on false complaint that has been
registered.

The petitioners hails from a respectable family
having deep roots in the society without any criminal
antecedents, ready to furnish surety to the satisfaction of the
Court and abide the conditions. Hence, they prayed to allow
this petition.
10.It is vehemently argued and contended in the
objection by the prosecution that prima facie it discloses that
petitioners are involved in committing the alleged offence and at
5
Crl.Misc.No.3177/2024
this stage of the case the petitioners cannot be considered
unless a full-fledged trial is commenced. Further it is argued
and objected that the investigation is still pending and
involvement of the act of petitioners in committing the alleged
offences. Further it is contended that at this stage if petitioners
are granted bail, they will not available for investigation. The
Learned Public Prosecutor in the detailed objections contended
that the investigation is still in progress regarding the mental
harassment
that lead to the cause of death of deceased-
Smt.Anusha, daughter of brother of complainant, and at this
stage if the petitioners are granted bail, there is every chance of
absconding from the jurisdiction of this court, intimidate and
tamper the complainant and other material witnesses. Hence,
submits that the petitioners are not entitled for grant of
anticipatory bail.
11.On the basis of arguments of learned counsel for
petitioners and the learned Prosecutor, verified the FIR and
relevant case papers. On perusal of the entire records placed
before the Court, it discloses that the offence alleged against
the petitioners is punishable U/s.306 r/w Sec.34 of IPC. The
offence U/s.306 of IPC, which is though not punishable with
death, but with imprisonment of either description for a term
which may extend to ten years and shall also be liable to fine
and triable by this Court.
12.On perusal of the entire records placed before the
Court, prima facie it discloses that the petitioners and another
subjected the deceased-Smt.Hemvathi to physical and mental
harassment. It is vehemently argued by the petitioners counsel
6
Crl.Misc.No.3177/2024
that there is no whisper of any allegation regarding harassment
to the deceased, but at this juncture the said fact cannot be
taken into consideration, when there is direct allegation against
the petitioners for having subjected the deceased to mental
harassment.

The I.O., has prayed in his report that they
required time for investigating the case, as they have to obtain
handwriting report with regard to death note left by the
deceased.

It is pertinent to note that at this stage if the
petitioners are granted bail, there is likelihood that they might
be abscond and would not be available for investigation. It is
equally important to note and consider the serious objection of
the prosecution that if the petitioners are granted bail before the
investigation complete, they would influence and tamper the
prosecution witnesses.
13.The learned counsel for the petitioners has relied
upon the following:-
1.Appeal(Crl.)572 of 2002 (Sanju @ Sanja Singh Sengar
Vs., State of M.P), and
2.Appeal (Crl.) No.359/2005 (Netai Dutta Vs., State of
West Bengal).
There is no dispute of the principles of law laid down in
the above referred appeal with regard to quashing of case. 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.

First and foremost thing that the hearing on
anticipatory bail application should consider is the
prima facie case put up against the accused.

7
Crl.Misc.No.3177/2024
Thereafter the nature of the offence should be looked
into along with severity of the punishment. Custodial
interrogation can be one of the grounds to refuse
anticipatory
bail.

However,
even if custodial
interrogation is not required or necessitated or by
itself cannot be a ground to grant anticipatory bail.
Anticipatory bail can be granted only in exceptional
cases, where court is prima facie of view that
applicant was falsely enroped in crime and he is not
likely to misuse his liberty. The Court may not
exercise its discretion in derogation of established
principles of law, rather it has to be in strict otherance
to them. Discretion has to be guided by law, duly
governed by rule cannot be arbitrary, fanciful or
vague.

The court must not yield to spasmodic
sentiment or unregulated benevolence, as held in
(2012) 4 SCC 379(Jaiprakash Singh Vs., State of
Bihar and another).
On perusal of the entire records placed before the Court,
it is alleged that the petitioners and another are responsible for
the death of sister of complainant by causing mental cruelty,
and have committed offence against women and society. In
Kalyan Chandra Sarkar V., Rajesh Ranjan (2004) 7 SCC 528:
2004 SCC (Cri) 1977. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has held
that:-
While granting bail the Court should exercise its
discretion in a judicial manner and not a matter of
8
Crl.Misc.No.3177/2024
course. It is also necessary for the Court granting bail
to consider
(a) The nature of accusation and the severity of
punishment in case of conviction and the nature of
supporting evidence.
(b) Reasonable apprehension of tampering with the
witness or apprehension of threat to the complainant,
(c) Prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of
the charge, as a dictum of lratio laid down in Ram
Govind Upadhyay V. Sudarshan Singh (2002) 3 SCC
598: 2002 SCC (Cri) 688 that
“Grant of bail though being a discretionary order –
but, however, calls for exercise of such a discretion in
a judicious manner and not as a matter of course.
Order for bail bereft of any cogent cannot be
sustained.
In Prasanta Kumar Sarkar V. Ashis Chatterjee; (2010) 14
SCC 496: (AIR 2011 SC 274) has also held that
9….It is trite that this Court does not, normally,
interfere with an order passed by the High Court
granting or rejecting bail to the accused. However, it
is equally incumbent upon the High Court to exercise
its discretion judiciously, cautiously, and strictly in
compliance with the basic principles laid down in a
plethora of decisions of this Court on the point. It is
well settled that, amount other circumstances, the
factors to be borne in mind while considering an
application for bail are:
9
Crl.Misc.No.3177/2024
(i)Whether there is any prima facie or reasonable
ground to believe that the accused committed the
offence;
(ii)nature and gravity of the accusation;
(iii)severity of the punishment in the event of
conviction;
(iv) danger of the accused absconding or fleeing, if
released on bail;
(v)character,
behaviour,
means,
position
and
standing of the accused;
(vi)likelihood of the offence being repeated;
(vii) reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being
influenced;
and
(viii)danger, of course, of justice being thwarted by
grant of bail.
14.In the instant case while applying the ratio laid down
by the Hon’ble Supreme Court with the fact of the case, it is
clear that there appears to be prima facie case made out by the
prosecution that an heinous offence has been alleged to have
been committed by the petitioners.

At this juncture it is
pertinent to note that the investigation is not completed and if
the petitioners are granted anticipatory bail, there is chance that
they may hamper the investigation and tamper the prosecution
witnesses. There is reasonable apprehension of tampering with
witnesses and threat to witnesses exists, if the petitioners are
granted anticipatory bail. The contentions put forth by the
petitioners in the petitions regarding merits of the case do not
10
Crl.Misc.No.3177/2024
arise for consideration of this court at this stage, as the
investigation of the case is in the process.

For the above
reasons the petitioners have failed to make out any ground for
granting anticipatory bail in their favour at this stage as sought
for.

The petitioners are not entitled for anticipatory bail,
considering the gravity and seriousness of the offence alleged
against them. Accordingly, I answer point No.1 in the negative.
15. Point No.2: In view of answer of this Court on point
No.1, this court proceed to pass the following:ORDER
The bail petition filed by the petitioners U/s.438
of Cr.P.C., is hereby dismissed.
(Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer directly on Computer, corrected by me
and then pronounced in open Court on this the 22nd day of April, 2024)
(Manjunatha)
XLV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru.

MANJUNATH
RAMA NAIK
Digitally signed by
MANJUNATH
RAMA NAIK
Date: 2024.04.27
17:27:12 +0530
11
Crl.Misc.No.3177/2024
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 dismissed.
(Manjunatha)
XLV ACC & SJ, Bengaluru.

12
Crl.Misc.No.3177/2024