In a recent judicial decision, the XLV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City (CCH-46), on August 23, 2023, granted anticipatory bail to Ankur Jaiswal, the petitioner and primary accused (Accused No. 1), in a case involving alleged matrimonial cruelty. The order, issued in Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 7965/2023, directs the KR Puram Police Station to release the petitioner in the event of his arrest in Crime No. 536/2023, which was registered for offences punishable under Sections $498\text{A}$, $323$, and $506$ read with Section $34$ of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), along with Sections $3$ and $4$ of the Dowry Prohibition (DP) Act.
The petitioner, Ankur Jaiswal, residing both in Agra, Uttar Pradesh, and Bengaluru, was represented by Sri/Smt. Stanley Sam, Advocate. He had moved the court under Section $438$ of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) seeking protection from arrest following a complaint lodged by his wife, Smt. Sonali Badola.
The Allegations and Defence
The case stems from a complaint filed by Smt. Sonali Badola, aged 43, who is the wife of the petitioner. The complaint alleges that the petitioner, along with another accused, subjected her to physical and mental cruelty. The timeline of the allegations, as presented in the court record, indicates an incident on $30\text{th}$ April at night, where the husband allegedly abused and assaulted her. Following this, the complainant lodged a police complaint with Kadugodi Police on $1\text{st}$ May 2023 and subsequently left for her brother’s house in Dehradun.
The narrative continues that the accused and his family later persuaded her to return, promising better care, and set up a separate residence in Bhattarahalli, KR Puram, Bangalore, starting from $10\text{th}$ June. However, the complainant alleges that subsequent to their relocation, the petitioner and his family members forced her to withdraw the earlier complaint and to bring money for purchasing a new house, subjecting her to continued physical and mental cruelty. A specific incident on $1\text{st}$ August 2023 is mentioned, where the accused No. 1 allegedly left after assaulting her, and on $8\text{th}$ August 2023, he returned without paying the house rent and failing to provide household articles. Unable to bear the alleged continuous harassment, the complainant filed a fresh complaint with the KR Puram Police on $12\text{th}$ August 2023.
The learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that Ankur Jaiswal is innocent of the alleged offences, denying any commission of such acts.
Conversely, the learned Public Prosecutor strongly opposed the bail plea, reiterating the severity of the allegations and arguing that the investigation was still at the initial stage. The prosecution expressed concern that granting bail could lead to the petitioner again causing mental and physical harassment to the complainant, tampering with prosecution witnesses, and non-cooperation with the ongoing investigation, thereby hampering the police efforts.
Court’s Rationale for Granting Bail
The court, presided over by Sri. Manjunatha, B.A., LL.B., addressed the central question: “Whether the petitioner has made out sufficient grounds for granting anticipatory bail in his favour?” The judge answered this point in the affirmative.
In its reasoning, the court first acknowledged the undisputed matrimonial dispute between the petitioner and the complainant. Despite the existence of a prima-facie case for offences under the IPC and DP Act, the court noted a critical legal distinction: the offences alleged—including Section $498\text{A}$ of the IPC—are non-bailable but are “not punishable with death or imprisonment for life.” Furthermore, the offence under Section $498\text{A}$ is exclusively triable by a Magistrate.
The judge emphasised the well-settled principle of law that the granting of bail is a discretionary power, considered on the basis of facts specific to each case. The court observed that the filing of the complaint itself was sufficient to draw an apprehension of arrest in the petitioner’s mind.
A key factor supporting the petitioner’s release was the court’s view that “no purpose will be served by allowing the respondent police to apprehend the petitioner and to keep him in custody,” especially when the petitioner expressed readiness to comply with all court-imposed terms and conditions and offer adequate surety. Given that the petitioner is a permanent resident, the court was satisfied that his presence could be secured easily, dismissing the risk of absconding. The court concluded that the apprehension raised by the prosecution could be met effectively by imposing “stringent conditions.”
Conditions for Release
To balance the petitioner’s right to liberty with the demands of a fair investigation, the court ordered the release of the petitioner on anticipatory bail, subject to the execution of a personal bond for $\text{Rs. 1,00,000/}$ (Rupees One Lakh) with one solvent surety for the like sum, to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer or Magistrate.
Crucially, the following stringent conditions were imposed on Ankur Jaiswal:
- Cooperation with Investigation: The petitioner must make himself available for interrogation by the Investigating Officer (I.O.) as and when required until the final report is filed, and assist the I.O. in further investigation.
- Periodic Attendance: He must mark his attendance once a month, specifically on the first Sunday of every month between $\text{10:00 a.m.}$ and $\text{2:00 p.m.}$, before the I.O. until the filing of the final report or further orders.
- Surrender Mandate: The petitioner must surrender before the concerned Police within $30$ days from the date of the order without fail.
- No Tampering or Intimidation: He is prohibited from directly or indirectly influencing, threatening, or promising any person acquainted with the case facts to dissuade them from disclosing information. He must not hamper further investigation, tamper with prosecution witnesses, or intimidate the complainant.
- No Similar Offences: He shall not commit similar or any offences in the future.
- Court Appearance: He shall appear before the concerned Magistrate Court as and when directed.
- Address Proof: He must furnish a notarized copy of his residential ID address proof.
The court’s decision underscores the judiciary’s approach in domestic disputes, ensuring the accused’s rights are protected while implementing robust conditions to safeguard the complainant and the integrity of the investigation process.