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. 2988/2024 on April 4, 2024. The judicial order extended pre-arrest bail protection to Rudresh S.B. (Accused No. 1), Basavegowda (Accused No. 2), Halajmma (Accused No. 3), and B.R. Srikantha (Accused No. 4) in connection with Crime No. 23/2024 registered by the Gangammanagudi 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), and 504 (intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace) read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), along with Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (DP Act).

Factual Background and Prosecution Allegations

The criminal proceedings originated from a formal complaint lodged by Smt. Annapurna, aged 23 years, wife of Petitioner No. 1 (Rudresh S.B.). According to the prosecution records, the marriage of the complainant with Rudresh S.B. was solemnized on January 26/27, 2023.

The complainant alleged that during the marriage, her parents provided a cash sum of ₹2,00,000/- along with gold ornaments as dowry upon demand by the accused family. She further alleged that after moving into her matrimonial home, the accused persons subjected her to physical assault, verbal abuse, and ongoing mental and physical harassment while demanding additional dowry. Unable to bear the alleged mistreatment, she lodged an FIR at the Gangammanagudi Police Station on February 2, 2024.

The details of the petitioners as per court records are:

• Rudresh S.B. (Petitioner No. 1 / Accused No. 1): Aged 31 years, son of Basavegowda, residing at Somshettihalli Village, Hanike Hobli, Hassan District, Karnataka – 573115.
• Basavegowda (Petitioner No. 2 / Accused No. 2): Aged 67 years, son of Halgegowda, residing at Somshettihalli Village, Hanike Hobli, Hassan District, Karnataka – 573115.
• Halajmma (Petitioner No. 3 / Accused No. 3): Aged 53 years, wife of Basavegowda, residing at Somshettihalli Village, Hanike Hobli, Hassan District, Karnataka – 573115.
• B.R. Srikantha (Petitioner No. 4 / Accused No. 4): Aged 34 years, son of Rudregowda, residing at Alaghatta Village, Ballegere Village, Kadur Taluk, Chikkamagaluru District, Karnataka – 577548.

Arguments Advanced on Behalf of the Petitioners

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

• Claim of Innocence and Matrimonial Discord: The petitioners maintained that they were innocent of the alleged offences and had been falsely implicated due to matrimonial disputes between the complainant and Petitioner No. 1.
• Non-Capital Offences: The defense pointed out that the alleged offences under Sections 498A, 323, and 504 IPC, alongside DP Act provisions, do not attract penalties of death or life imprisonment and are triable by a Magistrate.
• Permanent Residents and Undertaking: The petitioners highlighted that they are permanent residents of Hassan and Chikkamagaluru districts with fixed abodes. They expressed willingness to cooperate with the police investigation, abide by all court-imposed conditions, and furnish solvent 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. 23/2024 was actively in progress and that custodial interrogation was necessary.
• Apprehension of Witness Tampering: The state expressed concern that if enlarged on pre-arrest bail, the petitioners might cause further 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 Dispute Context

Judge Manjunatha observed that the primary dispute stemmed from a marital discord between Petitioner No. 1 and his spouse. The court noted that while an FIR containing allegations under Section 498A IPC creates a reasonable apprehension of arrest, the ultimate truth or falsity of the allegations remains a matter to be adjudicated during a full-fledged trial.

2. Statutory Punishment and Jurisdiction

The court emphasized that the offences alleged under Sections 498A, 323, and 504 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the DP Act are triable by a Magistrate of the First Class and do not carry mandatory sentences of death or life imprisonment.

3. Balancing Personal Liberty with Investigation Needs

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 protection 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. 23/2024 of Gangammanagudi 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.