BENGALURU, AUGUST 29, 2023 – In a significant ruling, the XLV Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, has granted anticipatory bail to petitioners B. N. Shivashyam and Smt. Shantha in a case registered under sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) related to dowry harassment and cruelty. The order, delivered on August 29, 2023, by Judge Sri. Manjunatha, allows the accused to be released on bail in the event of their arrest in connection with Crime No. 158/2023 of the Basavanagudi Women Police Station.

The petitioners, B. N. Shivashyam, the husband of the complainant, and Smt. Shantha, his mother and relative of the husband, had approached the court under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) seeking pre-arrest bail. The case was registered against them based on a complaint filed by Smt. Annapoorna @ Shubhashree, aged 24 years, alleging offenses punishable under Sections 498A (Cruelty by husband or relatives of husband), 504 (Intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace), and 506 (Punishment for criminal intimidation) of the IPC, along with Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition (DP) Act.

Allegations of Cruelty and Dowry Demand

According to the brief facts presented in the bail petition, the complainant alleged that her marriage with Petitioner No. 1, B. N. Shivashyam, was solemnized on February 14, 2022. Following the marriage, she resided with the accused’s family members and was allegedly subjected to physical and mental cruelty. The complaint specifically cited a demand for additional dowry of Rs. 10,00,000/- from her parents. Further allegations included Petitioner No. 1’s failure to care for her during pregnancy, addiction to gambling, harassment for money, abusive language, and threats to her life. It was also alleged that the accused forcibly pledged her gold articles and vacated the house while she was away at her parents’ house for delivery.

The learned Public Prosecutor strongly opposed the bail petition, arguing that the investigation was still in progress. The prosecution contended that granting bail at this stage could lead to the petitioners absconding, causing further mental and physical harassment to the complainant, destroying evidence, tampering with prosecution witnesses, and hampering the investigation.

Court’s Rationale for Granting Bail

The court, after hearing arguments and perusing the records, addressed the central point of consideration: whether the petitioners had made out sufficient grounds for granting anticipatory bail.

The court acknowledged the existence of a prima-facie case against the petitioners for the alleged offenses. However, it noted that the offenses U/s 498A, 504, and 506 of IPC and Sec. 4 of DP Act are not punishable with death or imprisonment for life. Critically, the court pointed out that the offense under Section 498A of the IPC, though non-bailable, is “exclusively triable by the Magistrate.”

The order highlighted that the documents produced, including the complaint and FIR, disclosed a matrimonial dispute between the first petitioner (B. N. Shivashyam) and the complainant. The court opined that the mere filing of the complaint was sufficient to generate apprehension of arrest in the minds of the petitioners regarding the non-bailable offense.

Emphasizing the principle that granting bail is a discretionary power based on the facts of each case, the Judge stated that the ultimate question of whether the petitioners committed the alleged offenses is a matter for the full-fledged trial. The court found no purpose would be served by apprehending the petitioners and keeping them in custody, especially since they are permanent residents of Bengaluru (a fact undisputed by the prosecution) and their presence could be easily secured. The court thus concluded that the question of absconding did not arise.

Furthermore, the court held that the objections raised by the learned Public Prosecutor could be effectively addressed by imposing stringent conditions on the petitioners. Concluding that there were no grounds to reject the petition, the court ruled in favor of granting anticipatory bail.

Stringent Conditions Imposed

The bail petition was allowed, and the petitioners were ordered to be released on bail upon executing a personal bond for Rs. 1,00,000/- each with one surety for the like sum, in the event of their arrest. The court imposed several strict conditions to ensure their cooperation with the investigation and the judicial process:

1. Availability for Interrogation: The petitioners must make themselves available for interrogation by the Investigating Officer (I.O.) as and when required until the final report is filed. They must also assist the I.O. in the investigation.
2. Monthly Attendance (Petitioner No. 1): Petitioner No. 1 (B. N. Shivashyam) must mark his attendance once a month, specifically on the first Sunday of every month between 10:00 a.m. and 2:00 p.m. before the I.O., until the final report is filed or until further orders.
3. Surrender: The petitioners must surrender before the concerned Police within 30 days from the date of the order.
4. No Inducement or Threat: They shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat, or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case to dissuade them from disclosing facts to the Court or the I.O.
5. No Tampering: They must not hamper the investigation, tamper with prosecution witnesses, or intimidate the complainant.
6. No Similar Offenses: They shall not commit similar or any other offenses during the pendency of the case.
7. Court Appearance: They must appear before the concerned Magistrate Court as and when directed.
8. Jurisdictional Restriction: They shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Bangalore City without prior permission.
9. Residence Change: They shall not change their place of residence outside the jurisdiction of Bangalore City without prior intimation.
10. Address Proof: They must furnish notarized copies of their residential ID address proof.

The order, therefore, allows B. N. Shivashyam and Smt. Shantha a temporary reprieve from arrest, subject to their strict adherence to the set conditions, while the police investigation continues.