The Court of the XLV Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City (CCH-46), presided over by Sri Mohammed Moinuddin, B.A., LL.B. (Spl.), delivered a judicial order on June 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. 3057/2024 extended pre-arrest bail protection to four petitioners—Sri Kiran N. (husband / Accused No. 1), Smt. Neelamma (mother-in-law / Accused No. 2), Sri Nagesh Murthy (father-in-law / Accused No. 3), and Smt. Archana (sister-in-law / Accused No. 4)—in connection with Crime No. 41/2024 registered by the Hennur Police Station, Bengaluru. The petitioners faced apprehension of arrest for alleged offences punishable under Sections 498A (husband or relative of husband subjecting woman to cruelty), 323 (voluntarily causing hurt), 324 (voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means), 504 (intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace), and 506 (criminal intimidation) read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

Factual Matrix and Prosecution Allegations

The criminal proceedings originated from a formal complaint lodged by Smt. Divya K. on January 25, 2024, alleging matrimonial harassment and physical assault:

• Marriage and Cohabitation: The marriage between the first petitioner, Kiran N., and the first informant, Smt. Divya K., was solemnized on September 22, 2023. Following their wedding, the couple resided together at the matrimonial home along with the other family members.
• Alleged Harassment: The complainant alleged that she was subjected to mental and physical harassment by the petitioners. She claimed that after an initial incident of harassment, she stayed at her parents’ house for about a month out of fear, and although elders and well-wishers intervened to resolve the differences, the situation did not improve.
• Incident of January 2024: The complainant alleged that on January 24, 2024, all the petitioners visited her parents’ house, abused her family in filthy language, harassed her, assaulted her, and issued criminal intimidation, prompting her to lodge a police complaint on January 25, 2024, resulting in Crime No. 41/2024.

Details of the Petitioners

• Petitioner No. 1: Sri Kiran N. (Husband / Accused No. 1), aged 28 years, son of Nagesh Murthy C.
• Petitioner No. 2: Smt. Neelamma (Mother-in-law / Accused No. 2), aged 48 years, wife of Nagesh Murthy C.
• Petitioner No. 3: Sri Nagesh Murthy (Father-in-law / Accused No. 3), aged 56 years, son of Sanjeevappa.
• Petitioner No. 4: Smt. Archana (Sister-in-law / Accused No. 4), aged 26 years, wife of Anand R.
• Common Residential Address for Petitioners 1 to 3: No. 77, 3rd Main, T. Channaiah Layout, Near Bus Stop, Nagawara, Bengaluru – 560045.
• Address for Petitioner No. 4: No. 144, Settigere, Bengaluru – 562157.
• Legal Representation: Sri Keshava Murthy M., Advocate

Submissions Advanced by the Parties

On Behalf of the Petitioners

1. False Implication: The defense maintained that the petitioners never subjected the complainant to any harassment for dowry or otherwise. Instead, the first petitioner, working as a driver, had tried his best to convince his wife to discharge her marital obligations, but she chose to make false allegations to escape her responsibilities.
2. Voluntary Departure: Counsel submitted that the complainant voluntarily left the matrimonial home in December 2023 without justification and subsequently cooked up a fictitious story to file a criminal case against the entire family out of vengeance.
3. Bailable Nature of Connected Offences: The defense noted that except for Section 498A IPC, all other invoked offences are bailable in nature, and expressed a strong apprehension of arbitrary arrest by the police.

On Behalf of the Respondent (State)

1. Need for Custodial Interrogation: The learned Public Prosecutor filed detailed written objections opposing the bail plea, arguing that the petitioners committed non-bailable offences involving physical and mental cruelty, making their custodial interrogation necessary.
2. Risk of Interference: The state contended that enlarging the petitioners on pre-arrest bail could lead to threats against the victim and witnesses or result in abscondance, thereby hampering the ongoing police investigation.

Judicial Findings and Legal Reasoning

Upon evaluating the complaint, FIR, and rival arguments, Judge Mohammed Moinuddin recorded definitive findings on the point for consideration:

1. Nature of Offences and Triability: The court observed that while Section 498A IPC is non-bailable, it does not carry a mandatory punishment of death or life imprisonment. Furthermore, all the connected offences under Sections 323, 324, 504, and 506 IPC are bailable in nature, and the entire set of offences is exclusively triable by a Magistrate.
2. Permanent Residency: Noting that the petitioners are permanent residents of Nagawara, Bengaluru City, with established local roots, the court held that their presence could easily be secured for investigation and trial.
3. No Necessity for Custodial Detention: Concluding that the apprehensions raised by the prosecution could be effectively addressed by imposing reasonable conditions, the court ruled that pre-arrest bail was warranted.

Final Pre-Arrest Bail Order and Conditions Imposed

Answering the point for consideration in the affirmative, the Sessions Court allowed the petition filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C.

The court ordered that petitioners Nos. 1 to 4 be released on bail in the event of their arrest in connection with Crime No. 41/2024 of Hennur Police Station, upon executing a personal bond for ₹1,00,000/- each with a surety for the like sum, subject to the following conditions:

1. Investigative Availability: The petitioners shall make themselves available for interrogation by the Investigating Officer as and when required until the final report is filed and assist in further investigation.
2. Timeline to Surrender: They shall surrender before the concerned police station within 30 days from the date of the order without fail.
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 so as to dissuade them from disclosing facts to the court or police, and shall not intimidate the complainant.
4. Non-Recidivism: They shall not hamper further investigation, tamper with prosecution witnesses, or commit similar offences in the future.
5. Court Attendance: They shall appear before the concerned Magistrate Court as and when directed.
6. Jurisdictional Limit & Residence: They shall not leave the jurisdiction of Bengaluru City or change their place of residence outside the jurisdiction without prior permission or intimation of the concerned court.
7. Identity Proof: They shall furnish their residential ID and address proofs.