In a significant judicial order delivered on April 4, 2024, the XLV Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City (CCH-46), Sri Manjunatha, B.A., LL.B., allowed the anticipatory bail application filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) in Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 2951/2024. The court granted pre-arrest bail protection to Balaji S in connection with Crime No. 101/2017 (C.C. No. 14009/2018) registered by the Nandini Layout Police Station. The petitioner was facing apprehension of arrest for offences punishable under Sections 324 (voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means), 354 (assault or criminal force to woman with intent to outrage her modesty), and 506 (criminal intimidation) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), pending on the file of the VII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (A.C.M.M.), Bengaluru.

Factual Background and Prosecution Allegations

The criminal proceedings originated from a complaint lodged by Smt. E. Hemalatha (aged 43 years). According to the prosecution case, the complainant owned a residential premises near MES English School, Parvathinagar, Laggere, within the limits of Nandini Layout Police Station, Bengaluru, and had rented out one of the residential units to the petitioner.

On March 16, 2017, at approximately 12:00 PM, the complainant visited the second floor of the premises to collect the monthly rent. It was alleged that upon demanding the rent, the petitioner picked up a quarrel with her, dragged her by grabbing her saree, and assaulted her with a wooden club on her left hand, causing bleeding injuries.

When an eye-witness (C.W. 4) intervened to enquire, the petitioner allegedly asserted that until a pending case before the High Court was decided, she should not demand rent or visit the premises, and threatened her with dire consequences while outraging her modesty in a public place. Based on her complaint, Nandini Layout Police registered Crime No. 101/2017. Following investigation, the police filed an absconding charge-sheet arraying Balaji S as the sole accused in C.C. No. 14009/2018.

The cause title records the background details of the petitioner:

• Balaji S: Aged 27 years, son of Subramani, residing at No. 235, 5th Main, Lakshmidevinagar, Nandini Layout, Bangalore North, Bengaluru.

Arguments Advanced on Behalf of the Petitioner

Appearing on behalf of the applicant, learned advocate Sri/Smt. H.N. Venkatesh presented several grounds seeking pre-arrest protection under Section 438 Cr.P.C.:

• Claim of Innocence and False Implication: The petitioner maintained that he was entirely innocent of the alleged offences and had been falsely implicated due to background landlord-tenant disputes.
• Completion of Investigation: Attention was drawn to the fact that the investigating agency had already completed its investigation and filed a final charge-sheet, demonstrating that custodial interrogation was no longer required.
• Magistrate-Triable Offence: The defence emphasized that although Section 354 IPC is non-bailable, it is triable by a Magistrate and does not attract death or life imprisonment penalties.
• Permanent Roots and Cooperation: The petitioner submitted certified copies of the FIR, complaint, and charge-sheet, affirming that he is a permanent resident at the cause title address and was prepared to face trial, furnish adequate sureties, and abide by all judicial conditions.

Objections Raised by the Prosecution

The Public Prosecutor strongly opposed the grant of anticipatory bail, submitting a detailed statement of objections:

• Prima Facie Charge-Sheet Material: The prosecution contended that police investigation established a prima facie case against the accused for outraging a woman’s modesty, causing hurt with a wooden club, and issuing death threats.
• Absconding Status: It was argued that the petitioner had been absconding since 2017, leading to the filing of an absconding charge-sheet, and that issuing process by the Magistrate warranted apprehension.
• Risk of Witness Tampering: The prosecution expressed concern that if enlarged on pre-arrest bail, the petitioner would intimidate the complainant, threaten prosecution witnesses, or evade court proceedings.

Judicial Findings and Detailed Legal Reasoning

The Sessions Court evaluated the charge-sheet records, order sheets, and arguments from both sides to decide Point No. 1: whether the petitioner made out a case for pre-arrest protection under Section 438 Cr.P.C.

1. Absence of Custodial Interrogation Necessity

Judge Manjunatha observed that the primary objective of custodial arrest during investigation is interrogation and collection of evidence. Because the Nandini Layout Police had already completed the investigation and submitted a full charge-sheet in C.C. No. 14009/2018, the court concluded that keeping the petitioner in physical custody for interrogation purposes was entirely unnecessary.

2. Nature of Offences and Trial Jurisdiction

The court highlighted that the primary non-bailable charge invoked—Section 354 IPC—is triable by a Magistrate Court and does not carry severe statutory punishments such as life imprisonment or death. The court reaffirmed the well-settled principle that grant of bail is a discretionary power to be exercised on the facts of each case, balancing personal liberty against societal interests.

3. Mitigating Flight Risk and Witness Intimidation

Addressing the prosecution’s objections regarding absconding and witness tampering, the court noted that the petitioner’s permanent local residence was undisputed by the State. The court held that any apprehension of trial delay or witness intimidation could be effectively safeguarded by imposing strict conditions, including an immediate appearance mandate before the trial court.

It remains a settled principle of criminal jurisprudence that an order deciding an anticipatory bail application is procedural in nature and does not constitute an expression on the final guilt or innocence of the accused, which remains subject to full-fledged trial before the Magistrate.

Final Pre-Arrest Bail Order and Imposed Conditions

Answering Point No. 1 in the affirmative, XLV Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge Sri Manjunatha allowed the petition filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. and passed the following order:

The bail petition filed by the petitioner under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. is hereby allowed. The petitioner, Balaji S, is ordered to be released on bail in the event of his arrest in Crime No. 101/2017 (C.C. No. 14009/2018) of Nandini Layout Police Station, on executing a personal bond for Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) with two sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the concerned Magistrate/Investigating Officer, subject to the following conditions:

1. He 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 such facts to the court or to the concerned Investigating Officer.
2. He shall not tamper with prosecution witnesses in any manner and shall not intimidate the complainant.
3. He shall not commit similar offences or any offence in the future.
4. He shall appear before the concerned Magistrate Court as and when directed.
5. He shall furnish his residential ID and address proofs.
6. He shall appear before the VII Additional CMM Court, Bengaluru, within 15 days from the date of this order, failing which the order stands canceled.
7. In the event of violation of any of the above conditions, the bail shall stand automatically canceled.