BENGALURU, INDIA – In a matrimonial dispute case involving allegations of dowry harassment and cruelty, the LXXI Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City, granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner, E. Raghavendra, a 45-year-old software engineer. The order, pronounced on June 23, 2022, under Crl.Misc. No. 5918/2022, provides protection from arrest to the husband in connection with Crime No. 190/2022 registered by the Ramamurthynagar Police Station.

The petitioner was booked for offences punishable under Section 498A (Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty) and Section 506 (Punishment for criminal intimidation) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

Background of the Matrimonial Dispute

The complaint was lodged by the petitioner’s legally wedded wife, who married E. Raghavendra on August 10, 2009, and has a girl child from the marriage. The core of the complaint details a history of harassment and cruelty following the marriage, primarily driven by demands for money.

Key allegations made by the complainant include:

• The petitioner allegedly demanded money, leading the complainant’s family to pay a total of Rs. 51,00,000/- (Rupees Fifty-One Lakh Only) to him.
• The petitioner purportedly used this money to purchase a house in N R Layout.
• Despite receiving the large sum, the petitioner allegedly continued to quarrel and treat the complainant with cruelty.
• The complaint further mentioned that the petitioner had constructed eight houses, six of which are rented out.
• On June 2, 2022, when the complainant went to collect rent, the petitioner allegedly started a quarrel, assaulted the complainant’s elder sister, and threatened them with dire consequences, prompting the criminal complaint.

Petitioner’s Defence and Grounds for Bail

E. Raghavendra, represented by Sri. K.N. Keshava, Adv., sought anticipatory bail, asserting his innocence and claiming to be a victim of the strained relationship. His defence highlighted several aspects:

1. Professional Status: The petitioner identified himself as a software engineer and a team leader managing 50 employees, emphasizing his professional responsibility and stability.
2. Allegations of Civil Nature: The petitioner implied that the dispute was rooted in property and marital disagreements, stating that the complainant and her family had influenced him to purchase property.
3. Wife’s Conduct: He alleged that the complainant was “adamant in nature” and preferred living according to her own will and the wishes of her family members, implicitly suggesting a lack of cooperation in the marriage, including refusing to move into a newly constructed house.
4. Family Responsibility: The petitioner cited his responsibility towards his aged parents, who are suffering from old age diseases.
5. Cooperation with Court: He committed to abiding by all conditions imposed by the court.

Court’s Consideration and Rationale

The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail plea, reiterating the complaint averments and stressing the existence of prima facie materials against the petitioner. The prosecution also raised the standard apprehension that granting bail might lead to the petitioner threatening the complainant and other witnesses.

Justice Smt. K.S. Jyothishree, the LXXI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, meticulously examined the documents and arguments. The court confirmed the existence of a legally wedded relationship that was currently un-cordial.

Crucially, the court noted that the dispute was already before the Family Court in the form of a divorce petition (M.C. No. 6451/2021) filed by the complainant. This fact, along with the referral of the dispute to mediation (with the next hearing scheduled for July 12, 2022), established that the matrimonial relationship was already undergoing a formal legal process of dissolution.

The court further observed that the Investigating Officer (I.O.) had already “completed the major part of the investigation,” including conducting a mahazar and recording witness statements. This finding implied that the necessity of custodial interrogation for the purpose of investigation was minimal or non-existent.

In its conclusion, the court relied on the following established legal principles:

• The involvement of the petitioner is “yet to be proved” through trial.
• The alleged offences (Section 498A and 506 IPC) are not punishable with death or imprisonment for life, and are triable by a Magistrate.

Based on the nature of the dispute (a strained matrimonial relationship with ongoing divorce and mediation proceedings) and the stage of the investigation, the court found “absolutely no reason to deny benefit of anticipatory bail” to the petitioner.

Conditions of Anticipatory Bail

The court answered the point for consideration in the affirmative and ordered the petition to be allowed. The Ramamurthynagar Police were directed to release E. Raghavendra in the event of his arrest in Crime No. 190/2022, subject to the following conditions:

1. The petitioner shall execute a personal bond for Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) with a like sum surety.
2. The petitioner shall not threaten the complainant and other witnesses.

This order grants the software engineer protection from pre-trial detention while allowing the civil and criminal legal proceedings arising from the matrimonial discord to continue.