In a notable judicial order passed on April 1, 2024, the XLV Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City (CCH-46), Sri Manjunatha, B.A., LL.B., allowed the anticipatory bail application in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 2872/2024. The court granted pre-arrest bail protection to H. Veeregowda (Accused No. 1), his mother Smt. Pushpavathi (Accused No. 2), and relatives Smt. Asha V., Smt. Ashwini, G.R. Nataraju, and Harish (Accused Nos. 3 to 6) in connection with Crime No. 3/2024 registered by the North Zone Women Police Station, Bengaluru. The petitioners were apprehending arrest for offences punishable under Section 498A (cruelty by husband or relatives) read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), alongside Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act (DP Act).

Case Background and Allegations

The criminal proceedings originated from a complaint lodged on March 16, 2024, at 5:20 PM by Smt. A.S. Likhitha, aged 30 years, wife of Petitioner No. 1 (H. Veeregowda). According to the prosecution case, the marriage between H. Veeregowda and Smt. Likhitha was solemnized on February 15, 2023. The complainant alleged that at the time of the wedding, the accused persons demanded and received ₹3,00,000 in cash and gold articles as dowry from her parents.

Subsequent to the marriage, the complainant began residing with her husband and his family. She alleged that the accused persons subjected her to ongoing physical and mental cruelty while demanding additional dowry. Unable to endure the alleged harassment, Smt. Likhitha filed a formal complaint at the North Zone Women Police Station.

The details of the petitioners as per court records are:

• H. Veeregowda (Petitioner No. 1 / Accused No. 1): Husband, aged 69 years, son of Hanumaiah.
• Smt. Pushpavathi (Petitioner No. 2 / Accused No. 2): Mother, aged 59 years, wife of Veeregowda. Both residing at Honnadevipura, Syakaldevanapura, Bangalore Rural, Karnataka – 561 204.
• Smt. Asha V. (Petitioner No. 3 / Accused No. 3): Relative, aged 38 years, wife of Harish Puttaswamy, residing at Nagarbhavi, Bengaluru – 560 091.
• Smt. Ashwini (Petitioner No. 4 / Accused No. 4): Relative, aged 35 years, wife of Nataraju G.R.
• G.R. Nataraju (Petitioner No. 5 / Accused No. 5): Relative, aged 44 years, son of Ramachandraiah H. Both residing at Mariyappanapalya, Bengaluru – 560 056.
• Harish (Petitioner No. 6 / Accused No. 6): Relative, aged 41 years, son of K.T. Puttaswamy, residing at Nagarbhavi, Bengaluru – 560 091.

Arguments Advanced on Behalf of the Petitioners

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

• Innocence and False Implication: The petitioners submitted that they were entirely innocent of the alleged offences, that no prima facie case existed against them, and that the allegations stemmed from a matrimonial dispute.
• Non-Capital Offences: The defence emphasized that the offences alleged under Section 498A IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the DP Act do not carry penalties of death or life imprisonment, and are exclusively triable by a Magistrate.
• Apprehension of Arrest: The registration of an FIR for non-bailable offences created a legitimate and well-founded fear of arrest and harassment at the hands of the police.
• Roots in Society and Undertaking: The petitioners are permanent residents of Bengaluru and Bangalore Rural with fixed abodes. They promised to cooperate fully with the investigation, submit to all court conditions, and offer solvent sureties.

Objections Raised by the Prosecution

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

• Ongoing Investigation: The investigation was in its preliminary stages, and releasing the accused on pre-arrest bail would hamper police efforts to gather evidence regarding dowry demands and harassment.
• Apprehension of Repeat Harassment and Flight: The prosecution expressed concern that if enlarged on pre-arrest bail, the petitioners might re-engage in harassing the complainant, threaten prosecution witnesses, destroy evidence, or abscond to evade trial.

Judicial Findings and Detailed Legal Reasoning

The Sessions Court examined the complaint, FIR records, and rival submissions to determine Point No. 1: whether the petitioners made out sufficient grounds for anticipatory bail.

1. Matrimonial Dispute Framework and Non-Capital Penalties

Judge Manjunatha observed that the certified copies of the FIR and complaint clearly established the existence of a matrimonial dispute between Petitioner No. 1 and the complainant. The court noted that even assuming a prima facie case existed, the offences under Section 498A IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the DP Act are triable by a Magistrate and do not attract punishment of death or life imprisonment.

2. Reasonable Apprehension and Purpose of Custody

The court emphasized that the filing of a criminal complaint alleging non-bailable matrimonial offences is sufficient to create a reasonable apprehension of arrest in the minds of the husband and his relatives. Holding that a full-fledged trial is the proper forum to establish guilt or innocence, the court noted that no fruitful judicial purpose would be served by allowing the police to arrest and detain the family members in custody when they are willing to abide by court conditions.

3. Protection Against Flight Risk

Recognizing that the petitioners are permanent residents with verifiable local addresses, the court observed that the risk of them absconding was minimal and that the prosecution’s concerns could be effectively safeguarded by imposing strict conditions, including regular reporting.

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 ultimate guilt or innocence of the accused, which remains subject to trial.

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 petitioners under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. is hereby allowed. The petitioners are ordered to be released on bail on their executing a personal bond for ₹1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) each with one surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the concerned Investigating Officer/Magistrate in the event of their arrest in Crime No. 03/2024 of North Zone Women Police Station, subject to the following conditions:

1. The petitioners shall make themselves available for interrogation by the Investigating Officer as and when required till the final report is filed and shall assist in further investigation. Petitioner No. 1 (husband) shall mark his attendance once a month (on the first Sunday of every month between 10:00 AM and 2:00 PM) before the I.O. until the filing of the final report or further orders.
2. The petitioners shall surrender before the concerned police within 30 days from the date of this order without fail.
3. 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 such facts to the court or investigating officer.
4. They shall not hamper further investigation, tamper with prosecution witnesses, or intimidate the complainant.
5. They shall not commit similar offences or any offences during the pendency of the case.
6. They shall appear before the concerned Magistrate Court as and when directed.
7. They shall not leave the jurisdiction of Bengaluru City without prior permission.
8. They shall not change their place of residence outside the jurisdiction of the concerned court without prior intimation.
9. They shall furnish a notarized copy of their residential identity/address proof.

Note: In the event of violation of any of the above conditions, the bail granted shall stand automatically canceled.