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. 2971/2024 extended pre-arrest bail protection to Sri U. Chandrakanth in connection with Crime No. 47/2024 registered by the East Zone Women Police Station, Bengaluru City, pending before the jurisdictional court. The petitioner faced apprehension of arrest for alleged offences punishable under Sections 498A, 504, and 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act (DP Act).

Factual Matrix and Prosecution Allegations

The criminal proceedings originated from a matrimonial dispute and a formal police complaint lodged by the petitioner’s wife:

• Marriage and Dowry Allegations: According to the complaint filed by Smt. V. Namratha (27 years), her marriage to the petitioner was solemnized on March 15, 2021. At the time of marriage, the accused family allegedly demanded and received cash and gold articles as dowry from the complainant’s parents.
• Harassment and Threats: Following the marriage, the petitioner and his family members allegedly subjected the complainant to continuous physical and mental cruelty, demanding additional dowry, abusing her in filthy language, and threatening her with life, ultimately forcing her to approach the police.

Details of the Petitioner

• Name: Sri U. Chandrakanth
• Father’s Name: Sri Ugregowda K.L.
• Age: About 31 years
• Residential Address: No. 301, Degula, Ground Floor, Pipeline Road, Mahalakshmipuram, Bangalore City, Karnataka – 560 086.
• Legal Representation: Sri/Smt. P. Mahadevaswamy, Advocate
• Prosecution Representation: Learned Public Prosecutor, State by East Zone Women Police Station, Bengaluru City

Submissions Advanced by the Parties

On Behalf of the Petitioner

1. Innocence and False Implication: The defense maintained that the petitioner was entirely innocent, had not committed any offence, and that the dispute arose purely from marital friction.
2. Readiness to Cooperate: Counsel urged that the offences alleged are not punishable with death or life imprisonment, and that the petitioner was fully willing to cooperate with the investigation and furnish solvent sureties.

On Behalf of the Respondent (State)

1. Opposition to Pre-Arrest Bail: The learned Public Prosecutor filed detailed objections opposing the petition, contending that the investigation was at an initial stage and that granting anticipatory bail would encourage the petitioner to continue subjecting the complainant to harassment.
2. Risk of Interference: The state argued that the petitioner might tamper with prosecution witnesses or hamper the ongoing investigation by failing to cooperate with police inquiries.

Judicial Findings and Legal Reasoning

Upon evaluating the records, case papers, 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 498A, 504, and 506 IPC and the DP Act are not punishable with death or imprisonment for life, and although Section 498A IPC is non-bailable, it is exclusively triable by a Magistrate.
2. Matrimonial Context: The judge noted that the dispute is fundamentally matrimonial in nature, and the filing of the complaint naturally generated a well-founded apprehension of arrest in non-bailable offences.
3. Absence of Custodial Necessity: Highlighting that the petitioner is a permanent resident of Bengaluru with fixed roots—a fact undisputed by the prosecution—the court held that no meaningful purpose would be served by subjecting him to custodial interrogation, and all apprehensions raised by the state could be effectively safeguarded 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 Sri U. Chandrakanth be released on bail in the event of his arrest in connection with Crime No. 47/2024 of East Zone Women Police Station, Bengaluru City, upon 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 petitioner shall make himself available for interrogation by the Investigating Officer as and when required until the final report is filed, and shall assist in the further investigation of the case.
2. Attendance Marking: He shall mark his attendance once a month on the first Sunday of every month between 10:00 AM and 2:00 PM before the Investigating Officer until the filing of the final report.
3. Surrender Timeline: The petitioner shall surrender before the concerned police station within 30 days from the date of the order.
4. No Witness Tampering: He 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.
5. Non-Recidivism: He shall not commit similar offences or any offences in future.
6. Court Attendance: He shall appear before the concerned Magistrate Court as and when directed.
7. Jurisdictional Restriction: He shall not leave the jurisdiction of Bengaluru City without prior permission of the court.
8. Residence Continuity: He shall not change his place of residence outside the jurisdiction of Bengaluru City without prior intimation to the court/police.
9. Identity Proof: He shall furnish a notarized copy of his residential address proof.
10. Cancellation Clause: Any violation of the aforesaid conditions shall result in the automatic cancellation of the bail order.