KABC010090662024
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.3213/2024
Petitioners
1.Tayamma @ Anjanamma
W/o Anjinappa, a/a 59 yrs.,
r/a No.17, Chikkanna Layout,
Venkateshpura, Bangalore North,
Bangalore-560 045.
2.Shilpa @ Shilpa.A,
D/o Anjinappa, a/a 31 Yrs.,
r/a No.01C-05, 2nd Cross, near
Chikkanna layout, Shampura Main
Road, Bangalore North, Bangalore560 045.
3.Raghu @ A.Raghu,
D/o Anjinappa, a/a 28 Yrs.,
r/a No.8, Chikkanna Layout,
Shampura Main Road, Bangalore
North, Bangalore-560 045.
4.Raja @ Muniraja,
S/o Muni Krishnappa, a/a 49 Yrs.,
r/a No.17, chikkanna Layout,
shamnpura Main Road, Bangalore
Northy, Banglaore-560 045.

2
Crl.Misc.No.3213/2024
5.Puttu @ Murali.A,
S/o Anjinappa, a/a 29 Yrs.,
r/o Chikkanna Layout,
Shampura Main Road, Bangalore
North, Nagawara,
Bangalore-560 045.
(By Sri/Smt; S. M. Hajira, Adv.,)
AND
Respondent
State by Kadugondanahalli P. S.,
Bengaluru.
(By the learned Public Prosecutor)
ORDER ON BAIL PETITION FILED U/S.438 OF Cr.P.C.,
The learned counsel for 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.155/2024 in the interest of justice.
2. The brief facts of the bail petition is that based on the
complaint
of
Respondent
complainant-Sagayaraj,
Police
have
registered
a/a
case
56
Yrs.,
the
against
the
Petitioners in Crime No.155/2024 for the offences punishable
U/s.341, 323, 354 and 504 r/w Sec.149 of IPC. The Petitioners
being accused persons apprehending their arrest by the
Respondent Police and constrained to file this petition to grant
bail and thereby they have prayed for allowing the petition.
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
3
Crl.Misc.No.3213/2024
and also contended that if Petitioners are granted bail there is
chance of destroying the evidence, tamper the prosecution
witnesses and hamper the investigation. Accordingly, prayed for
rejection of bail petition.
4. Heard the arguments on both sides. Perused the
relevant 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.155/2024 of Kadugondanahalli
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
case against the Petitioners in Crime No.155/2024 for the
offences punishable U/s.341, 323, 354 and 504 r/w Sec.149 of
IPC, on the Complaint of complainant-Sagayaraj, a/a 56 Yrs.,
8.It is the case of the complainant that on 25.03.2024 at
3.00 p.m. the accused No.1 and 2 have made dirty infront of
house of complainant, when the wife of complainant objected
for the same, the accused persons by abusing assaulted the
4
complainant.

Crl.Misc.No.3213/2024
When complainant enquire the same with the
accused at 8.00 p.m. the accused persons picked up quarrel
with the complainant, accused No.1 by holding the shirt collar of
complainant slapped on his cheek, remaining accused persons
by wrongfully restraining the complainant from proceeding
further, accused No.3 assaulted over the face of complainant,
when wife of complainant interefere to pacify the quarrel the
accused No.4 assaulted on the face of wife of complainant and
pushed her by outraging her modesty. The accused persons
have also assaulted the children of complainant. Accordingly,
complainant has filed complaint against the accused persons
before respondent police.
9.The contention of petitioners is that they are innocent of
the offences alleged against them and they have not committed
any such offences.
submitted
unless
On the contrary the prosecution has
a
full-fledged
trial
is
complete,
the
accused/petitioners cannot be considered as innocent at this
point of time.
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.341, 323, 354
and 504 r/w Sec.149 of IPC, even though the said offences are
not punishable with death or imprisonment for life, the offence
U/s.354 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.3213/2024
copies of FIR and complaint produced by the petitioners
discloses that there was apprehension of their arrest by the
respondent police for the alleged non-bailable offence. Though
the offences are non-bailable, but not punishable with death or
imprisonment for life. The entire fact has to be gathered only
after full fledged trial. But at this juncture, it is clear that there
is an apprehension that the petitioners might be arrested in
non-bailable offences for interrogation by the respondent police
for enquiry.

It is pertinent to note that the interrogation of the
accused/petitioners is not at all required for the alleged offences
as shown in the FIR. On perusal of the documents produced by
the petitioners prima facie it discloses that the petitioner No.2
had lodged a complaint against the defacto complainant and
others before respondent police, based on the said complaint
the
respondent
police
have
registered
case
in
Crime
No.154/2024 for the offences punishable U/s.341 323, 354 and
504 r/w Sec.149 of IPC. It is the contention of the petitioners
that to counterblast to the said case the present case has been
registered against them by the defacto complainant before the
respondent police.

By considering all the above facts and
arguments canvased by prosecution it is found that if stringent
conditions
are
imposed
on
the
appearance
of
the
petitioners/accused persons before the I.O.,/Court the purpose
of prosecution objection that petitioners/accused would not
appear for enquiry before I.O., and trial before Court would be
met with.

At this juncture, it is equally important to note that
when the petitioners are ready to abide by the terms and
conditions imposed by the court and when ready to face the trial
6
Crl.Misc.No.3213/2024
by offering adequate surety, this court is satisfied and is of the
opinion that no purpose will be served by allowing the
respondent police to apprehend the petitioners for interrogation.
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 grounds made out by the
prosecution to reject this bail petition. Accordingly, under these
circumstances, the petitioners have made 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 offences. Accordingly, I answer Point
No.1 in the affirmative.
12. 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 like sum to the satisfaction of
the concerned I.O.,/Magistrate in the event of their
arrest
in
the
case
Kadugondanahalli
conditions:-
P.

in
S.,
Crime
No.155/2024
subject
to
of
following
7
1.The
Petitioners
shall
Crl.Misc.No.3213/2024
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.
2.The Petitioners shall surrender before the
concerned Police within 30 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 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 their place of residence
outside the jurisdiction of concerned Court
without prior intimation.

8
Crl.Misc.No.3213/2024
9.They shall furnish their residential id address
proofs.
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 16th day of April, 2024)
(Manjunatha)
XLV Addl. CC & SJ, Bengaluru.

MANJUNATH
RAMA NAIK
Digitally signed
by MANJUNATH
RAMA NAIK
Date: 2024.04.27
15:21:58 +0530
9
Crl.Misc.No.3213/2024
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.

10
Crl.Misc.No.3213/2024