In a notable judicial order passed on April 5, 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. 2938/2024. The court granted pre-arrest bail protection to K. Manjunath in connection with Crime No. 25/2024 registered by the Krishnarajapuram Police Station, Bengaluru. The petitioner was apprehending 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 504 (intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

Factual Matrix and Prosecution Allegations

The criminal proceedings originated from a complaint lodged by Smt. Chandrakala, aged 50 years, at the Krishnarajapuram Police Station. According to the prosecution case, on January 10, 2024, at around 9:00 PM, the complainant’s husband lit a small fire near their home to boil water. The petitioner, K. Manjunath, approached him and demanded that he extinguish the fire immediately, stating that painting work was underway at his nearby residence.

When the complainant’s husband responded that they would put out the fire shortly after finishing, the petitioner allegedly became enraged, used filthy language, and retrieved an iron rod stored in his car. The petitioner then allegedly struck the complainant’s husband on the head and stomach, causing bleeding injuries. When the complainant and her son intervened to rescue him, the petitioner allegedly struck both of them with the iron rod, inflicting further bleeding injuries. Furthermore, when the complainant confronted the petitioner regarding the violent attack, he allegedly dragged her saree, thereby outraging her modesty. Based on her complaint, the police registered Crime No. 25/2024.

The details of the petitioner as per court records are:

• K. Manjunath: Aged 35 years, son of Krishnappa, residing at No. 11, 4th Cross, Krishnappa Compound, Shanthi Layout, Ramamurthy Nagar (RM Nagar), Bengaluru – 560016.

Arguments Advanced on Behalf of the Petitioner

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

• Innocence and False Implication: The petitioner maintained that he was entirely innocent of the alleged offences, had not committed the assault, and was falsely implicated following a petty neighborhood dispute regarding smoke and paintwork.
• Non-Capital Offences: The defence emphasized that the offences alleged under Sections 324, 354, and 504 IPC do not carry penalties of death or life imprisonment, and are exclusively triable by a Magistrate.
• Absence of Need for Custodial Interrogation: The defence submitted that physical custodial interrogation was not required and that the petitioner was willing to fully cooperate with the investigating officer.
• Roots in Society and Undertaking: The petitioner is a 35-year-old permanent resident of Ramamurthy Nagar, Bengaluru, with no prior criminal antecedents. He promised to abide by all conditions imposed by the court 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:

• Prima Facie Violent Attack: Case records and complaint averments demonstrated a prima facie case involving an iron rod attack resulting in bleeding head injuries and outraging the modesty of a woman.
• Ongoing Investigation and Threat Apprehension: The prosecution expressed concern that releasing the accused on pre-arrest bail during an active investigation might lead to witness tampering, harassment of the complainant’s family, or evasion of trial.

Judicial Findings and Detailed Legal Reasoning

The Sessions Court evaluated the complaint, FIR records, medical allegations, and rival submissions to determine Point No. 1: whether the petitioner made out a case for pre-arrest protection under Section 438 Cr.P.C.

1. Neighborhood Dispute Context and Non-Capital Penalties

Judge Manjunatha observed that certified copies of the FIR and complaint established an underlying neighborhood altercation over boiling water and house painting. The court noted that even assuming a prima facie case existed under Sections 324, 354, and 504 IPC, the offences are triable by a Magistrate and do not attract sentences of death or life imprisonment.

2. Lack of Necessity for Pre-Trial Detention

The court highlighted that the primary purpose of bail evaluation is ensuring the presence of the accused during investigation and trial rather than pre-trial punishment. Holding that full-fledged trial is the proper forum to evaluate the exact extent of injuries and allegations, the court noted that no fruitful judicial purpose would be served by allowing the police to arrest and detain the petitioner in custody when he is ready to submit to court conditions.

3. Protection Against Flight Risk

Examining the cause title and background records, the court found that the petitioner was a permanent resident of Bengaluru with a fixed abode. The court held that the prosecution’s concerns regarding trial attendance and witness protection could be effectively managed by imposing strict conditions—including regular monthly reporting—rather than denying pre-arrest protection.

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 petitioner under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. is hereby allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on executing a personal bond for Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) with one surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the concerned Investigating Officer/Magistrate in the event of his arrest in Crime No. 25/2024 of Krishnarajapuram Police Station, subject to the following conditions:

1. The petitioner shall make himself available for interrogation by the Investigating Officer as and when required till the final report is filed and shall assist in further investigation. 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 I.O. until the filing of the final report or further orders.
2. The petitioner shall surrender before the concerned police within 30 days from the date of this order without fail.
3. 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 investigating officer.
4. He shall not hamper further investigation, tamper with prosecution witnesses in any manner, or intimidate the complainant.
5. He shall not commit similar offences or any offences in the future.
6. He shall appear before the concerned Magistrate Court as and when directed.
7. He shall not leave the jurisdiction of Bengaluru City without prior permission.
8. He shall not change his place of residence outside the jurisdiction of Bengaluru City without prior intimation.
9. He shall furnish a notarized copy of his residential identity/address proof.

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