In a significant development concerning a high-profile domestic dispute case, the XLV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge in Bengaluru has granted anticipatory bail to a man accused of offences including dowry harassment, assault, and criminal intimidation by his wife. The order, delivered on September 11, 2023, pertains to Crl. Misc. No. 8536/2023, filed by the petitioner, Anantha Prasad S., seeking protection from arrest in connection with Crime No. 265/2023 registered at Puttenahalli Police Station.

The petitioner, Anantha Prasad S., aged 53, a resident of JP Nagar, Bengaluru, was represented by advocate M. Radhika. The respondent in the petition was the State, represented by the learned Public Prosecutor. The core of the petition was a plea under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) to grant anticipatory bail and direct the respondent police to release him immediately in the event of his arrest.

The case was registered based on a complaint filed by the petitioner’s wife, Smt. Asha Raghavendra, aged 47. The First Information Report (FIR) in Crime No. 265/2023 was lodged for offences punishable under Sections 498A (Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty), 355 (Assault or criminal force with intent to dishonour a person), and 506 (Punishment for criminal intimidation) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

According to the complainant, her marriage to the accused was solemnized on April 17, 2022, and the couple has a female child. She alleged that the accused subjected her to physical and mental cruelty, citing his alleged illicit relationships with multiple women. Furthermore, the complaint detailed a demand for Rs. 15,00,000/- (Fifteen Lakhs) from the complainant and her father to purchase a site at Hosur. While the money was allegedly received and deposited into the site owner’s account, the accused later allegedly sold the site for Rs. 4,50,000/- without informing the complainant or her father. The complaint further mentioned a specific incident on August 25, 2023, during the Varamahalakshmi festival, where the accused allegedly assaulted the complainant with a chappal on her eyes, cheek, chest, head, and other parts of her body after she woke him up, subjecting her to tyranny and threats.

The learned Public Prosecutor filed a detailed objection opposing the bail application, arguing that the petition was not maintainable and that granting bail at the initial stage of investigation would allow the petitioner to continue causing mental and physical harassment to the complainant. The prosecution also raised the standard concerns regarding the petitioner potentially tampering with prosecution witnesses and hampering the investigation by failing to cooperate.

After hearing arguments from both sides and perusing the materials on record, the presiding Judge, Sri. Manjunatha, considered the crucial question of whether the petitioner had made out sufficient grounds for granting anticipatory bail.

In its reasoning, the Court noted the presence of a matrimonial dispute between the petitioner and the complainant, which was evident from the complaint and FIR. While acknowledging the prima facie case against the petitioner for the alleged offences, the Court underscored that the offences under Sections 498A, 355, and 506 of IPC are not punishable with death or imprisonment for life. Importantly, the offence under Section 498A, though non-bailable, is exclusively triable by a Magistrate.

The Court emphasized the well-settled principle of law that granting bail is a discretionary power and each case must be considered on its own merits. It observed that the question of whether the petitioner committed the alleged offence is a matter to be decided only at the time of a full-fledged trial. Crucially, the Court determined that since the petitioner is a permanent resident of the address listed in the cause title—a fact not disputed by the prosecution—his presence can be secured easily, mitigating the risk of absconding.

Concluding that “no purpose will be served by allowing the respondent police to apprehend the petitioner and to keep him in custody,” the Court ruled that the objections raised by the learned Public Prosecutor could be adequately addressed by imposing stringent conditions. The Court found that the petitioner had indeed made out sufficient grounds for granting anticipatory bail, answering Point No. 1 in the affirmative.

The bail petition was, therefore, allowed, and the petitioner was ordered to be released on bail upon executing a personal bond for Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Only) with two sureties for the like sum to the satisfaction of the concerned Investigating Officer (I.O.) or Magistrate, in the event of his arrest.

The grant of bail was made subject to ten strict conditions designed to ensure the petitioner’s cooperation and to protect the integrity of the investigation and the safety of the complainant. These conditions include:

1. Availability for Interrogation: The petitioner must make himself available for interrogation by the I.O. as and when required until the final report is filed, and assist the I.O. in the investigation. He is also required to mark his attendance twice a month (first and third Sunday) between 10:00 a.m. and 2:00 p.m. before the I.O., until the final report is filed or further orders.
2. Surrender: The petitioner must surrender before the concerned police within 30 days from the date of the order.
3. No Inducement or Threat: He shall not directly or indirectly induce, threaten, or promise any person acquainted with the facts of the case to dissuade them from disclosing facts to the Court or the I.O.
4. No Tampering: He shall not hamper further investigation, tamper with prosecution witnesses, or intimidate the complainant.
5. No Similar Offences: He shall not commit similar or any other offences in the future.
6. Court Appearance: He must appear before the concerned Magistrate Court as and when directed.
7. Jurisdiction Restriction: He shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Bangalore City without the prior permission of the concerned Court.
8. Residence: He shall not change his place of residence outside the jurisdiction of Bangalore City without prior intimation to the concerned court.
9. ID Proof: He must furnish a notarized copy of his residential ID address proof.
10. Violation: A crucial condition specifies that the bail shall stand automatically canceled in the event of a violation of any of the imposed terms.

This judicial decision underscores the legal principle that bail is the rule and jail is the exception, even in cases involving serious allegations of domestic violence, provided the accused adheres to stringent conditions that safeguard the investigative process and protect the victim. The petitioner, Anantha Prasad S., now has a window of 30 days to comply with the surrender requirement and begin adhering to the rigorous bail conditions.