The Court of the XLV Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City (CCH-46), presided over by 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. 2952/2024 on April 16, 2024. The court granted pre-arrest bail protection to Nagendra Jaipal Jakannavar (Accused No. 2), Suvarna Jakannavar (Accused No. 3), and Archana Gommatesh Pattankude (Accused No. 4) in connection with Crime No. 52/2024 registered by the Basavanagudi Women Police Station, Bengaluru City. The petitioners faced apprehension of arrest for alleged offences punishable under Sections 498A (husband or relative of husband subjecting woman to cruelty), 354A (sexual harassment), and 323 (voluntarily causing hurt) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), as well as Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (DP Act).

Factual Background and Prosecution Allegations

The criminal proceedings originated from a complaint lodged by Smt. Shruthi Jain Parshwanath, aged 34 years, wife of Accused No. 1. According to the prosecution records, the marriage of the complainant with Accused No. 1 was solemnized on November 15, 2018, during which gold and silver articles were allegedly demanded and received as dowry by the accused family.

The complainant alleged that Accused No. 1 subjected her to physical and mental cruelty, demanding additional household articles, a car, and a house from her father. She further alleged that Accused No. 1 failed to perform marital obligations, left for Finland on August 31, 2020, and demanded properties via phone while threatening to sever marital ties. Regarding the petitioners (relatives of the husband), the complainant alleged that Accused No. 3 (mother-in-law) demanded a gold chain and car for Deepavali in 2019, while Accused No. 4 (sister-in-law) interfered in her marital life.

Additionally, the complainant alleged that following the death of her father-in-law, Accused No. 2 (brother-in-law/relative) entered her room and inappropriately touched her, causing sexual abuse. In May 2022, when the complainant visited Belagavi, Accused No. 3 allegedly sent her away, stating Accused No. 1 would not return to India. Unable to endure further harassment, she lodged an FIR at the Basavanagudi Women Police Station on March 11, 2024.

The details of the petitioners as per court records are:

• Nagendra Jaipal Jakannavar (Petitioner No. 1 / Accused No. 2): Aged 43 years, son of late Jaipal Jakkanavar, residing at Suvarna Niwas, Plot No. 5, RS No. 100, CTS No. 4304, 8th Cross, Bhagyanagar, Angol, Belagavi, Karnataka – 590006.
• Suvarna Jakannavar (Petitioner No. 2 / Accused No. 3): Aged 68 years, wife of late Jaipal Jakkannavar, residing at the same Belagavi address.
• Archana Gommatesh Pattankude (Petitioner No. 3 / Accused No. 4): Aged 45 years, wife of Gommatesh Babasaheb Pattankude, residing at No. 36, Brahmanath Nilaya, 8th Cross, Manjunathnagar, Kalkere, Ramamurthynagar, Bengaluru – 560016.

Arguments Advanced on Behalf of the Petitioners

Appearing on behalf of the applicants, learned advocate Indra Dhanush presented several grounds seeking pre-arrest protection under Section 438 Cr.P.C.:

• Claim of Innocence: The petitioners maintained that they were entirely innocent of the alleged offences and had been falsely implicated owing to an underlying matrimonial dispute between the complainant and Accused No. 1.
• General and Vague Allegations: Counsel submitted that the primary allegations were directed against Accused No. 1 (the husband currently abroad), whereas the assertions against the in-laws and married sister-in-law were omnibus and unspecific in nature.
• Non-Capital Offences: The defence pointed out that the alleged offences under Sections 498A, 354A, and 323 IPC, along with DP Act provisions, do not attract the death penalty or life imprisonment and are triable by a Magistrate.
• Permanent Address and Undertaking: The petitioners highlighted that Petitioner No. 2 is a 68-year-old senior citizen and all applicants are permanent residents of Belagavi and Bengaluru. They assured the court of their willingness to cooperate fully with the investigation and offer adequate sureties.

Prosecution Objections and State Arguments

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

• Ongoing Investigation: The prosecution submitted that the investigation into Crime No. 52/2024 was actively in progress, and custodial interrogation was necessary to verify allegations of sexual harassment and dowry demands.
• Apprehension of Interference and Abscondance: The state expressed apprehension that if enlarged on pre-arrest bail, the petitioners might cause further mental and physical harassment to the complainant, tamper with prosecution evidence, intimidate witnesses, or abscond to evade trial.

Judicial Findings and Detailed Legal Reasoning

The Sessions Court evaluated the complaint, FIR records, statutory provisions, and rival submissions to determine whether the petitioners made out sufficient grounds for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C.

1. Matrimonial Context and Nature of Allegations

Judge Manjunatha observed that the case arose out of a matrimonial rift between Accused No. 1 and the complainant. The court noted that while specific grievances regarding property demands and non-return to India were raised against the husband (Accused No. 1), the allegations against the in-laws (Petitioners Nos. 1 to 3) required full-fledged trial determination to establish common intention.

2. Statutory Jurisdiction and Non-Capital Penalties

The court emphasized that the offences alleged under Sections 498A, 354A, and 323 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the DP Act are triable by a Magistrate and do not carry mandatory death or life imprisonment sentences. The court observed that pre-arrest bail cannot be denied solely because the applicants are relatives of the principal accused, especially when they face apprehension of arrest in non-bailable offences.

3. Balancing Personal Liberty with Investigation Safeguards

Holding that the petitioners are permanent residents whose presence can be secured without custodial detention, the court resolved the point for consideration in the affirmative. The court concluded that the prosecution’s concerns regarding investigation cooperation or witness interference could be effectively managed by imposing strict reporting directives.

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 Conditions Imposed

Answering the point for consideration in the affirmative, the XLV Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge Sri Manjunatha allowed the petition filed under Section 438 of 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 in the event of their arrest in Crime No. 52/2024 of Basavanagudi Women Police Station, on executing a personal bond for ₹1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) each with one surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer or jurisdictional Magistrate, subject to the following conditions:

• The petitioners shall surrender before the concerned police within 30 days from the date of this order without fail.
• The petitioners shall make themselves available for interrogation by the Investigating Officer as and when required until the final report is filed. Petitioner No. 1 shall mark his attendance once a month on the first Sunday between 10:00 AM and 2:00 PM before the Investigating Officer until filing of the final report.
• The petitioners shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat, or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case.
• The petitioners shall not hamper further investigation, tamper with prosecution witnesses, or intimidate the complainant.
• The petitioners shall not commit similar offences during the pendency of the case.
• The petitioners shall appear before the concerned Magistrate Court as and when directed.
• The petitioners shall furnish notarized copies of their residential ID and address proof.

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