In a significant ruling concerning the scope of anticipatory bail, the XLV Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City (CCH-46), granted relief to four petitioners seeking protection from arrest in a case involving charges of outraging modesty and criminal intimidation. The order, delivered on September 4, 2023, by Sri. Manjunatha, allowed the petition (Crl.Misc. No. 8415/2023) filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.).

The petitioners—identified as Amjad (40), his son Mohammed Shahid @ Shahid (18), and Amjad’s brothers Afzal Pasha @ Afzal (33) and Afroz Pasha @ Afroa (23)—were named as accused in Crime No. 408/2023 registered by the Banaswadi Police Station. The case was filed based on a complaint lodged by Smt. Husna Begum, aged 21.

The Allegations and Police Charges

The First Information Report (FIR) was registered against the petitioners for alleged offences punishable under Section 354 (Assault or criminal force to woman with intent to outrage her modesty) and Section 506 (Punishment for criminal intimidation), read with Section 149 (Every member of unlawful assembly guilty of offence committed in prosecution of common object) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

The core of the complainant’s accusation, as noted in the court’s order, is that on August 9, 2023, at 12:30 a.m., the accused persons allegedly approached the complainant, engaged in a quarrel, abused her using filthy language, threatened her with life, and attempted to drag her chudidhar, thereby outraging her modesty.

The petitioners, represented by their counsel, contended that they were innocent of the offences and had been falsely implicated. Apprehending their arrest by the Banaswadi Police for these non-bailable offences, they sought anticipatory bail to avoid immediate detention.

Prosecution’s Objection and Counter-Case

The learned Public Prosecutor filed a detailed objection, arguing that the bail petition was not maintainable as the investigation was still in progress. The prosecution expressed the standard concerns that granting bail could lead to the destruction of evidence, tampering with prosecution witnesses, and hampering the investigation.

However, a crucial factor that emerged during the hearing was the existence of a counter-case. The court’s order explicitly mentions that the petitioner No. 1, Amjad, had lodged his own complaint against the complainant and others in Crime No. 411/2023 at the same police station. This counter-FIR was registered for offences punishable under Sections 323 (Voluntarily causing hurt), 324 (Voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means), and 506 (Criminal intimidation) read with Section 149 of the IPC.

The court observed that this suggests a “counterblast” scenario, where both sides have filed police complaints against each other, indicating a possible civil or personal dispute masquerading as a purely criminal matter.

Judicial Analysis and Ruling

The court carefully examined the nature of the alleged offences in Crime No. 408/2023. While acknowledging that a prima facie case could be argued against the petitioners, the judge noted the limitations on punishment:

• The offences under Sections 354 and 506 of the IPC are non-bailable but are not punishable with death or imprisonment for life.
• Notably, the offence under Section 354 of IPC is exclusively triable by a Magistrate.

This lower level of judicial jurisdiction for trial, coupled with the absence of the most severe punishments, significantly weighed in favor of granting relief.

The court emphasized the well-settled principle that bail is a discretionary power, and each case must be decided on its specific facts. While the prosecution apprehended interference with the investigation, the court found that the interrogation of the petitioners/accused was “not at all required” for the alleged offences, given the stage of the case and the nature of the allegations.

“No purpose will be served by allowing the respondent police to apprehend the petitioners for interrogation,” the court stated, concluding that the objections of the prosecution could be adequately addressed through the imposition of stringent conditions.

Furthermore, the court confirmed that the petitioners are permanent residents of Bengaluru, a fact not disputed by the prosecution, making their presence easily secured and mitigating the risk of them absconding. Thus, the court answered the primary point of consideration—whether sufficient grounds for anticipatory bail had been made out—in the affirmative.

Strict Conditions for Bail

In allowing the petition, the court ordered the release of the four petitioners on anticipatory bail in the event of their arrest, subject to furnishing a personal bond for Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh) each with one surety for the like sum.

The release is subject to ten strict conditions designed to ensure cooperation with the law enforcement and judicial process:

1. Surrender: The petitioners must surrender before the concerned police within 30 days from the date of the order.
2. Interrogation and Attendance: They must make themselves available for interrogation by the Investigating Officer (I.O.) as required until the final report is filed. Additionally, they must mark their attendance once a month (specifically, the first Sunday of every month between 10:00 a.m. and 2:00 p.m.) before the I.O. until the filing of the final report.
3. No Tampering: They must not directly or indirectly threaten, induce, or promise any person acquainted with the facts of the case.
4. No Obstruction: They shall not hamper further investigation or tamper with prosecution witnesses, including intimidating the complainant.
5. No Repeat Offences: They shall not commit similar or any other offences during the pendency of the case.
6. Court Appearance: They must appear before the concerned Magistrate Court as and when directed.
7. Jurisdiction: They shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Bengaluru City without prior court permission.
8. Residence: They shall not change their place of residence outside the jurisdiction of the concerned court without prior intimation.
9. Proof of Address: They must furnish their residential address proofs.
10. Cancellation Clause: Violation of any of these conditions will result in the automatic cancellation of the bail.

This ruling grants temporary liberty to the accused while strongly protecting the integrity of the ongoing police investigation.