Bengaluru, June 28, 2022 – In a domestic dispute case marred by cross-allegations of cruelty, dowry demand, and infidelity, the LXXI Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge in Bengaluru granted anticipatory bail to Gangadhar.R and four of his family members. The court ruled that the petitioners were entitled to protection from arrest given the stage of the investigation and the nature of the offences.

The order, pronounced by Smt. K.S. Jyothishree, allowed the petition filed under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) in connection with Crime No. 181/2022 registered at Basavanagudi Women Police Station. The charges include serious offences under Section 498A (Husband or relative of husband subjecting a woman to cruelty), Section 504 (Intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace), and Section 506 (Criminal intimidation) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), along with Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act (D.P. Act).

The Parties and Allegations

The petitioners seeking anticipatory bail included:

1. Gangadhar.R (Petitioner No. 1): The husband of the complainant.
2. Rathnamma (Petitioner No. 2): Mother-in-law.
3. Rajappa (Petitioner No. 3): Father-in-law.
4. Nagaraju (Petitioner No. 4): Brother-in-law.
5. Shivukumar (Petitioner No. 5): Brother-in-law.

The complainant, the legally wedded wife of Petitioner No. 1, stated that her marriage was solemnized on August 18, 2008. They have a male child from the wedlock.

Complainant’s Allegations:

The complaint outlined a progression of marital distress:

• Infidelity: Petitioner No. 1 (husband) allegedly developed an illicit relationship with another woman.
• Cruelty and Dowry Demand: When the complainant questioned her husband’s behavior, all the petitioners allegedly started quarreling, abused her in filthy language, and demanded dowry.
• Specific Financial Demand: The harassment escalated following the death of the complainant’s father on August 18, 2018. Her maternal home received $\text{Rs. } 1,00,000/$ (One Lakh Rupees) as a due payment from his private company. The petitioners allegedly began pressuring her to bring this specific amount to them, treating her with cruelty and threatening her with dire consequences.

Petitioner’s Defense and Counter-Allegations

The petitioners sought anticipatory bail, offering their own version of the domestic conflict:

• Demand for Separate Residence: They contended that the complainant herself was demanding a separate house, a request to which the husband (Petitioner No. 1) had agreed. However, she left the matrimonial home and filed a false case from her parents’ house.
• Infidelity Counter-Claim: They made a serious counter-allegation, claiming the complainant had an illegal relationship with a friend of Petitioner No. 1, suggesting this was the true reason she abandoned the matrimonial home and filed the false case.
• Financial Burden: They also noted a practical financial entanglement, stating the complainant had borrowed a loan from a bank with Petitioner No. 1 acting as the surety, and she was now failing to repay the amount.

Court’s Analysis and Decision

The learned Public Prosecutor filed objections, opposing the bail and reiterating that the complaint averments and materials showed a prima facie case for cruelty and harassment, arguing that releasing the petitioners would pose a threat to the complainant and her family.

The court, however, focused on the legal requirements for anticipatory bail under the circumstances:

• Nature of Allegations: The court acknowledged the marital discord, noting that the relationship between the complainant and Petitioner No. 1 was clearly troubled. The petitioners No. 2 and 3 are the parents-in-law, and petitioners No. 4 and 5 are the brothers-in-law, indicating that the complaint encompasses the entire immediate family. The court also noted that the complexity of the family dispute was further evidenced by the fact that the complainant had already filed a civil suit, O.S. No. 3107/2022, as the guardian of her minor son, seeking partition of the family property against the petitioners.
• Stage of Investigation: Crucially, the court found that the Investigating Officer (I.O.) had already commenced and substantially completed the major part of the investigation. This included conducting the mahazar (seizure memo or inspection report) and recording the statements of witnesses. This conclusion diminished the necessity of custodial interrogation.
• Punishment Prescribed: The court noted that the alleged offences (498A, 504, 506 IPC and Sec. 4 of D.P. Act) are non-bailable but are not punishable with death or imprisonment for life. Since the offences are triable before a learned Magistrate, the standard for granting bail is more lenient.

The court ultimately determined that at this stage, denying the benefit of anticipatory bail to the five family members, including the parents-in-law and the brothers-in-law, was unwarranted, as their involvement and commission of the offences were yet to be proven in trial.

Conditions for Release

In the result, the court allowed the petition and directed the Basavanagudi Women Police Station to release all five petitioners in the event of their arrest in Crime No. 181/2022, subject to the following conditions:

1. Each of the five petitioners shall execute a personal bond for $\text{Rs. } 50,000/$ (Fifty Thousand Rupees) with a like sum surety.
2. The petitioners shall not threaten the complainant and other witnesses in the case.