KABC010017542023
IN THE COURT OF XLV ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS
JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY (CCH-46)
DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF JANUARY, 2023
PRESENT:
Sri. Manjunatha, B.A., LL.B.,.
XLV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.
CRL.MISC. No.563/2023
Petitioner
V. Satish
S/o Veluswamy, a/a 35 Yrs.,
r/a No.24/25, 10th A Cross,
Gowdanpalya, Kumaraswamy
Layout, Bangalore.
(By Sri/Smt; Krishnaiah H @
Kirshna.H.C., Advocate)
AND
Respondent
State by Basavanagudi Women
P.S., Bengaluru.
(By the learned Public Prosecutor)
ORDER ON BAIL PETITION FILED U/S.438 OF Cr.P.C.,
The learned counsel for the petitioner has filed bail
petition U/s.438 of Cr.P.C., to grant anticipatory bail in favour of
the petitioner and also direct the respondent police to release
him on bail in the event of his arrest in their Crime No.9/2023
in the interest of justice.
2. On the basis of the complaint filed by the
complainant-Smt.M. Priya w/o petitioner, the case was
registered against the petitioner in Crime No.9/2023 for the
offences punishable U/s.498A, 504 and 506 of IPC and Sec.4
2
Crl.Misc.No.563/2023
of DP Act. Now the petitioner being accused is apprehending
his arrest by the respondent police. Hence, the petitioner
constrained to file this petition and thereby he has 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. Further she has reiterated the contents of
complaint and also contended that if petitioner is granted bail at
the stage of investigation, then the petitioner shall again involve
in causing mental and physical harassment to the complainant.
It is also the objection of the prosecution that the petitioner
would tamper the prosecution witness and hamper the
investigation by not co-operating the respondent police and has
prayed for dismissal of the bail petition.
4. Heard the arguments on both sides and perused the
materials on record.
5. The following points are arises for consideration of this
Court:
1. Whether the petitioner has made out
sufficient grounds for granting anticipatory
bail in his favour in Cr.No.9/2023 of
Basavanagudi Women 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:-
3
Crl.Misc.No.563/2023
REASONS
7.Point No.1: On considering the papers on record, it is
evident to note that the respondent police have registered a
case in Crime No.9/2023 against the petitioner on the basis of
complaint filed by Smt.Priya, who is the wife of petitioner for the
offences punishable U/s.498A, 504 and 506 of IPC and Sec.4 of
DP Act.
It is the case of the complainant that on 10.02.2019 the
marriage of accused was solemnized with the complainant, and
after the marriage the complainant started reside along with
accused at KS Layout, Bangalore, at that time the accused
subjected the complainant to physical and mental cruelty by
closing his fault started to suspect her fidelity, and failed to take
care of her, and demanding her to bring money from her
parents, by pledging her gold articles, purchased a site, and on
6.11.2022 the accused dropped the complainant to her parents
house, on 20.12.2022 came and picked up quarrel with the
complainant, assaulted the brother of complainant, and in that
regard a case has been registered. Further the accused over
phone by abusing threatened her with life. Unable to bear the
physical and mental cruelty caused by the accused persons,
complainant constrained to file complaint against the petitioner
before respondent police.
8. The contention of petitioner is that he is innocent of the
offence alleged against him and he has not committed any such
offence. Per-contra as submitted by the learned Public
Prosecutor, the investigation is at the initial stage and it is yet to
be completed. Hence, it is not proper to believe or consider that
the petitioner is innocent of the alleged offences.

4
Crl.Misc.No.563/2023
9. It is pertinent to note that even for the sake of
argument, it is accepted that there is prima-facie case against
the petitioner and another for the offences punishable U/s.498A,
504 and 506 of IPC and Sec.4 of DP Act , perhaps the said
offences are not punishable with death or imprisonment for life.
The offence U/s.498-A of IPC is though non-bailable, but it is
exclusively triable by the Magistrate.
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 certified
copies of complaint and FIR produced by the petitioner
discloses that a complaint has been lodged by the complainant,
who is the wife of petitioner at Basavanagudi Women P.S., in
Crime No.9/2023 on 12.1.2023 at 12.30 hours for an offences
punishable U/s.498A, 504 and 506 of IPC and Sec.4 of DP Act.
The petitioner has also produced copies of notice etc., The
documents would disclose that there is a matrimonial dispute
between petitioner and the complainant. Admittedly, the
petitioner is the husband of the alleged complainant-Smt.Priya,
against whom the filing of the complaint is sufficient to draw
apprehension in the minds of the petitioners regarding their
arrest in non-bailable offence.
11. Whether the petitioner has committed the alleged
offences 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 petitioner is ready to abide by the terms and
conditions imposed by the court and when he is ready to offer
due and adequate surety for his release on bail, then this court
is of the opinion that no purpose will be served by allowing the
5
Crl.Misc.No.563/2023
respondent police to apprehend the petitioner and to keep him
in custody. The petitioner is the the permanent resident as
shown in the cause title and this fact has not been disputed by
the prosecution, as such the presence of petitioner can be
secured easily, hence, the question of absconding of the
petitioner 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 petitioner has made out sufficient ground for
granting anticipatory bail in his favour at this stage as prayed for
as there exist reason to believe that he may be arrested in nonbailable offence. 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 Petitioner U/s.438 of
Cr.P.C. is hereby allowed.
The Petitioner is ordered to be released on bail
on his executing personal bond for Rs.1,00,000/- with
one surety for like sum to the satisfaction of the
concerned I.O.,/Magistrate in the event of his arrest in
the case in Crime No.9/2023 of Basavanagudi
Women P.S., subject to following conditions:
1.The Petitioner shall make himself available for
interrogation by the I.O. as and when required till the
final report is filed. Further, he shall assist the I.O. in
further investigation of the case. He shall give
attendance before the concerned I.O., on every
6
Crl.Misc.No.563/2023
Sunday of the month in between 10.00 a.m. and 2.00
p.m. till filing of final report or further orders whichever
is earlier.
2.The Petitioner shall surrender before the
concerned Police within 30 days from the date of this
order without fail.
3.He 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.He shall not hamper further investigation of the
case and tamper with prosecution witnesses in any
manner and shall not intimidate the complainant.
5.He shall not commit similar offences or any
offences in future,
6.He shall appear before the concerned
Magistrate Court as and when directed,
7.He shall not leave the jurisdiction of the
Bangalore City without the prior permission of the
concerned Court.
8.He shall not change his place of residence
outside the jurisdiction of Bangalore City without prior
intimation of the concerned court, and
9.He shall also furnish the notarized copy of his
residential id address proof.
(Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer directly on Computer,
corrected by me and then pronounced in open Court on this the 23rd day of
January, 2023)
(Manjunatha)
XLV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru.

7
Crl.Misc.No.563/2023
Order pronounced in the open court
vide its separate order
ORDER
The bail petition filed by the petitioner
U/s.438 of Cr.P.C. is hereby allowed.
(Manjunatha )
XLV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru.

8
Crl.Misc.No.563/2023