BENGALURU, KARNATAKA — August 28, 2023: In a significant order on Monday, the XLV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge of Bengaluru City (CCH-46) granted anticipatory bail to five individuals, including a husband and his family members, who were booked by the East Zone Women Police Station in connection with a case involving dowry harassment and cruelty.
The court, presided over by Sri Manjunatha, B. A., LL.B., passed a common order for two petitions, Crl. Misc. No. 7925/2023 and Crl. Misc. No. 7926/2023, arising out of Crime No. 116/2023.
Accused Identified as Husband and Relatives
The petitioners, who are now the accused, were facing charges under several serious sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the Dowry Prohibition (DP) Act.
| Petitioner/Accused | Relationship to Complainant | Case No. |
| A. Sunil | Husband | Crl. Misc. 7925/2023 |
| Bhagyamma | Mother-in-Law (Presumed) | Crl. Misc. 7926/2023 |
| A. Asha | Relative (Presumed Sister-in-Law) | Crl. Misc. 7926/2023 |
| Venkatalakshmamma @ Usha | Relative (Presumed Sister-in-Law) | Crl. Misc. 7926/2023 |
| Tejaswini.A | Relative (Presumed Sister-in-Law) | Crl. Misc. 7926/2023 |
All petitioners were represented by advocate Sri/Smt: N. Elukoti. The case was argued against the respondent, the State, by the learned Public Prosecutor.
Allegations of Dowry and Harassment
The case was registered based on a complaint filed by Smt. Sowmya, aged 27, wife of the first accused, A. Sunil.
- Marital Background: The marriage between A. Sunil and Smt. Sowmya was solemnized on February 7, 2022.
- Cruelty Charges: The complainant alleged that at the time of marriage, the accused persons received gold articles as dowry. Following the marriage, all the accused subjected her to physical and mental cruelty by demanding additional dowry in terms of cash and gold articles. She further alleged they forced her to work and turn over her salary to them, ultimately forcing her to return to her parents’ house.
- Threats: The complaint also cited an incident on July 8, 2023, where the accused allegedly threatened her with life.
The offences registered against the petitioners include:
- IPC: Section 498A (Cruelty by husband or relatives), 504 (Intentional insult), and 506 (Criminal intimidation) read with Section 34 (Common intention).
- DP Act: Sections 3 and 4 (Giving or taking dowry and demand for dowry).
Court’s Rationale for Granting Bail
The prosecution strongly opposed the bail, arguing that the investigation was still in progress and granting bail could lead to the petitioners absconding, tampering with witnesses, or further harassing the complainant.
However, the Court addressed these concerns and ruled in favor of the petitioners, noting:
- Nature of Offences: The Court emphasized that the offences alleged are not punishable with death or imprisonment for life. While Section 498A is non-bailable, it is exclusively triable by a Magistrate.
- Trial Outcome: The Court stated that determining the petitioners’ guilt or innocence is a matter to be decided only at the time of a full-fledged trial, and it could not conclude they were innocent at this preliminary stage.
- Risk of Absconding: Given that the petitioners are permanent residents as shown in the cause title, the Court concluded that the question of them absconding does not arise, and their presence can be easily secured.
- Matrimonial Dispute: The court acknowledged the presence of a matrimonial dispute as the backdrop for the complaint.
Stringent Conditions Imposed
While granting the anticipatory bail, the Court imposed strict conditions to ensure cooperation with the investigation and prevent misuse of the liberty:
- Bail Bond: Each petitioner must execute a personal bond for ₹1,00,000/- (One Lakh Rupees) with one surety for the like sum.
- Surrender Deadline: The petitioners must surrender before the concerned Police within 15 days from the date of the order.
- Mandatory Attendance for Husband: Petitioner A. Sunil must mark his attendance once a month (specifically on the first Sunday of every month between 10:00 a.m. and 2:00 p.m.) before the I.O. until the final report is filed.
- Non-Interference: All petitioners are forbidden from directly or indirectly making any inducement, threat, or promise to any person acquainted with the case facts, or hampering the investigation and tampering with witnesses.
The Court concluded that “no purpose will be served by allowing the respondent police to apprehend the petitioners and to keep them in custody” when they are ready to abide by stringent conditions. The decision highlights the discretionary power of the Court in balancing the rights of the accused with the needs of the ongoing investigation.