The Court of the XLV Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City (CCH-46), presided over by Sri Manjunatha, B.A., LL.B., delivered a judicial order on April 3, 2024, allowing an anticipatory bail application filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.). The ruling in Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 2955/2024 extended pre-arrest bail protection to five petitioners—Syed Arif (Petitioner No. 1), Smt. Arshiya (Petitioner No. 2), Smt. Nazeema (Petitioner No. 3), Smt. Shanaz (Petitioner No. 4), and Smt. Farhana Banu (Petitioner No. 5)—in connection with Crime No. 43/2024 registered by the Jagajeevanramnagar Police Station, Bengaluru. The petitioners faced apprehension of arrest for alleged offences punishable under Sections 323, 354, 504, and 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

Factual Matrix and Prosecution Allegations

The criminal proceedings originated from a domestic dispute and a counter-complaint scenario following a failed matrimonial reconciliation:

• Matrimonial Background and Dispute: According to the complaint filed by Smt. Nagina Taj (42 years), her son’s marriage to one Ambar had run into difficulties, leading to their separation, with the daughter-in-law residing with her parents. Although mediation and panchayat talks failed, a settlement discussion had reportedly taken place at a designated office.
• The Incident: On March 10, 2024, at approximately 10:15 PM, the daughter-in-law and her family members visited the complainant’s house to retrieve belongings given at the time of marriage. During this visit, a heated altercation erupted. The complainant alleged that the accused persons abused her, threatened her with life, and outraged her modesty.
• Counter-Case Context: Following the altercation, the Jagajeevanramnagar Police registered Crime No. 43/2024 against the petitioners. Notably, records revealed that Petitioner No. 5 (Smt. Farhana Banu) had also lodged a counter-complaint against the de facto complainant and others, resulting in the registration of Crime No. 42/2024 for identical offences under Sections 323, 354, 504, and 506 r/w Section 34 IPC, indicating that the present case was instituted as a counterblast.

Details of the Petitioners

• Petitioner No. 1: Syed Arif, aged 35 years, son of Chand B.I., residing at No. 28, 5th Cross, Mysore Road, New Guddadahalli, Nehru Road, Pipeline Road, Bangalore – 560 026.
• Petitioner No. 2: Smt. Arshiya, aged 29 years, wife of Syed Akhil, residing at No. 20, 6th Main Road, Shamanna Nagar, Bangalore – 560 026.
• Petitioner No. 3: Smt. Nazeema, aged 32 years, wife of Javeed Pasha, residing at No. 939, Arundathinagar, Gangondanahalli, Chandra Layout, Bangalore – 560 072.
• Petitioner No. 4: Smt. Shanaz, aged 28 years, wife of Musheer Ahmed, residing at No. 928, 6th Cross, Gangondanahalli, Bangalore – 560 039.
• Petitioner No. 5: Smt. Farhana Banu, aged 30 years, wife of Arif Pasha, residing at No. 9/2, 11th Cross, Hosahalli Main Road, Padarayanapura, Bangalore – 560 026.
• Legal Representation: Sri/Smt. J.A. Dastagir, Advocate
• Prosecution Representation: Learned Public Prosecutor, State by Jagajeevanramnagar Police Station

Submissions Advanced by the Parties

On Behalf of the Petitioners

1. Innocence and False Counterblast: The defense maintained that the petitioners were entirely innocent and that the complaint was a fabricated counterblast engineered specifically to retaliate against the valid criminal case (Crime No. 42/2024) already initiated by Petitioner No. 5 against the complainant party.
2. Cooperation and Permanent Residence: Counsel urged that the petitioners are permanent residents of Bengaluru with deep roots in society, that custodial interrogation was wholly unnecessary given the nature of the dispute, and that they were willing to abide by any conditions imposed by the court.

On Behalf of the Respondent (State)

1. Opposition to Pre-Arrest Bail: The learned Public Prosecutor filed detailed objections opposing the grant of anticipatory bail, contending that the investigation was ongoing and that enlarging the petitioners on bail would create a risk of evidence tampering, witness intimidation, and hampering the police inquiry.

Judicial Findings and Legal Reasoning

Upon examining the case papers, counter-FIR records, and rival submissions, Judge Manjunatha recorded definitive findings on Point No. 1:

1. Nature of Offences: The court observed that even accepting the prosecution’s allegations prima facie, the offences under Sections 323, 354, 504, and 506 IPC are not punishable with death or imprisonment for life, and although Section 354 IPC is non-bailable, it is exclusively triable by a Magistrate.
2. Counter-Complaint Dynamics: Highlighting that Petitioner No. 5 had earlier lodged a complaint resulting in Crime No. 42/2024 against the de facto complainant party, the judge noted the strong probability that Crime No. 43/2024 was instituted as a retaliatory counter-case.
3. Unnecessity of Custodial Interrogation: The court held that custodial interrogation of the petitioners was not warranted for the alleged offences, and all apprehensions raised by the prosecution regarding witness tampering or non-appearance could be effectively addressed by imposing stringent conditions.

Final Anticipatory Bail Order and Conditions Imposed

Answering Point No. 1 in the affirmative, the Sessions Court allowed the petition filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C.

The court ordered that Syed Arif, Smt. Arshiya, Smt. Nazeema, Smt. Shanaz, and Smt. Farhana Banu (Petitioners 1 to 5) be enlarged on bail in the event of their arrest in connection with Crime No. 43/2024 of Jagajeevanramnagar Police Station, upon each petitioner executing a personal bond for ₹1,00,000/- with one surety for the like sum to the satisfaction of the concerned Investigating Officer or Magistrate, subject to the following strict conditions:

1. Investigative Availability: The petitioners shall make themselves available for interrogation by the Investigating Officer as and when required until the filing of the final report, and shall assist in the further investigation.
2. Surrender Timeline: They shall surrender before the concerned police station within 30 days from the date of the order.
3. No Witness Tampering: They shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat, or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case, nor intimidate the complainant or tamper with prosecution evidence.
4. Non-Recidivism: They shall not commit similar offences or any offences during the pendency of the case.
5. Court Attendance: They shall appear before the concerned Magistrate Court as and when directed.
6. Jurisdictional Restriction: They shall not leave the jurisdiction of Bangalore City without prior permission of the court.
7. Residence Continuity: They shall not change their place of residence outside the jurisdiction of the concerned court without prior intimation.
8. Identity Proof: They shall furnish their residential address proof documents.
9. Cancellation Clause: Any violation of the aforesaid conditions shall result in the automatic cancellation of the bail order.