Display PDF

IN THE COURT OF LXXI ADDL.
CITY CIVIL &

SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY (CCH-72)
DATED THIS THE 13 th DAY OF JANUARY, 2023
PRESENT:
Smt. K.S.JYOTHISHREE, B.Com, L.L.B.

LXXI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru.
CRL.MISC.No.221/2023
Petitioners 1.Abhishek.M,
S/o K.Muniraju,
Aged about 31 years
2. K.Muniraju,
S/o Late.Krishnappa N,
Aged about 60 years
3. Smt. Sunitha,
W/o K.Muniraju,
Aged about 53 years
4. Arjun Raju.M,
S/o K.Muniraju,
Aged about 28 years
All are R/at No.7/1, 1st
Main, 2nd Block,
T.R.Nagar, Bengaluru.
(By Sri.Maheshwara S G,
Adv.)
AND
Respondent State of Karnataka
2 Crl.Misc.No.221/2023
Basavanagudi Women P
S, Bengaluru.
(By the learned Public
Prosecutor)
ORDER ON BAIL APPLICATION FILED U/S.438
OF Cr.P.C.
The bail application is filed by the petitioners
under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. praying to grant an order
of anticipatory bail in the event of their arrest in the
complaint lodged by Smt. Krithi.H before the
respondent police for the offences punishable U/s.
498A, 506 r/w 34 of IPC and Sec. 3 & 4 of D.P.Act.
2. The facts are as under:
The petitioner No.1 married Smt.Krithi.H on
13.03.2022. Thereafter, the petitioners came to know
that she is arrogant and adamant in behaviour. On
19.04.2022, she left the matrimonial home and
returned on 19.05.2022. Again 19.06.2022, she
voluntarily left the matrimonial home and staying

with her parents. She demanded separate house. The
petitioner No.1 had issued legal notice on 19.09.2022.
She has filed M.C petition on 18.10.2022 by making
false allegation. She has lodged complaint against the
petitioners. The respondent police has issued notice
to the petitioners and directed to appear for enquiry.
3. Grounds for bail:

1. The petitioners are innocents.
2. There was no demand and receipt of dowry.
3.The marriage was solemnized on 13.03.2022
and she stayed with the petitioners only for
few days. She has filed M.C petition and now
lodged false complaint.
4. The petitioners are ready to abide by the
conditions to be imposed by the court.
With these contentions, they have requested to

allow the application.
4. The learned Public Prosecutor has filed the
objections submitting that there is no case registered
against the petitioners. Hence, prayed for dismissal of
the application.
5. Heard.
6. The points that arise for my consideration are:

1. Whether the petitioners have made
out sufficient grounds to grant
anticipatory bail ?
2. What order?
7. My answer to the above points are hereunder:

Point No.1: In the affirmative
Point No.2: As per final order,
for the following:
R EAS O N S
8. Point No.1: It appears that, on 05.01.2023,
the wife of the petitioner No.1 lodged complaint before
the respondent police and accordingly, the notice was
issued to the petitioner No.1 and directed him to
appear for counseling.
9. The petitioner No.2 & 3 are the parents and
petitioner No.4 is a brother of petitioner No.1. They
have submitted that, the complainant had left the
matrimonial home and staying with her parents. They

have further contended that the complainant
demanded separate house and she is not willing to
lead life along with petitioner No.2 to 4.
10. It appears that there is an apprehension of
arrest. Moreover, the said offences are not punishable
with death or imprisonment for life and it is
exclusively triable by learned Magistrate. Hence, there
is absolutely no reason to deny benefit of anticipatory
bail to the petitioners at this stage. Consequently, the
point No.1 is answered in the affirmative.
11. Point No.2: Hence, I proceed to pass the
following:
ORD ER
The bail application filed by the
petitioners under Section 438 of Cr.P.C.
is hereby allowed.
The respondent police is hereby
directed to release the petitioners in the
event of their arrest in the complaint
lodged by Smt. Krithi.H before the
respondent police for the offences

punishable U/s. 498A, 506 r/w 34 of
IPC and Sec. 3 & 4 of D.P.Act, subject to
the following conditions:
1. The petitioners shall execute
personal bond for Rs.50,000/-
each with like sum surety.
2. The petitioners shall not
threaten the complainant.
=
(Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer directly on the computer, corrected by me and then pronounced
in open Court on this the 13th day of January, 2023)
(K.S.Jyothishree)
LXXI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge
Bengaluru.

Display PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Display PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Display PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

IN THE COURT OF LXXI ADDL.

CITY CIVIL &

DATED THIS THE 13 th DAY OF JANUARY, 2023

Smt. K.S.JYOTHISHREE, B.Com, L.L.B.

under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. praying to grant an order

of anticipatory bail in the event of their arrest in the

complaint lodged by Smt. Krithi.H before the

respondent police for the offences punishable U/s.

498A, 506 r/w 34 of IPC and Sec. 3 & 4 of D.P.Act.

2. The facts are as under:

The petitioner No.1 married Smt.Krithi.H on

13.03.2022. Thereafter, the petitioners came to know

that she is arrogant and adamant in behaviour. On

19.04.2022, she left the matrimonial home and

returned on 19.05.2022. Again 19.06.2022, she

voluntarily left the matrimonial home and staying

with her parents. She demanded separate house. The

petitioner No.1 had issued legal notice on 19.09.2022.

She has filed M.C petition on 18.10.2022 by making

false allegation. She has lodged complaint against the

petitioners. The respondent police has issued notice

to the petitioners and directed to appear for enquiry.

3. Grounds for bail:

With these contentions, they have requested to

objections submitting that there is no case registered

against the petitioners. Hence, prayed for dismissal of

6. The points that arise for my consideration are:

7. My answer to the above points are hereunder:

8. Point No.1: It appears that, on 05.01.2023,

the wife of the petitioner No.1 lodged complaint before

the respondent police and accordingly, the notice was

issued to the petitioner No.1 and directed him to

appear for counseling.

9. The petitioner No.2 & 3 are the parents and

petitioner No.4 is a brother of petitioner No.1. They

have submitted that, the complainant had left the

matrimonial home and staying with her parents. They

have further contended that the complainant

demanded separate house and she is not willing to

lead life along with petitioner No.2 to 4.

10. It appears that there is an apprehension of

arrest. Moreover, the said offences are not punishable

with death or imprisonment for life and it is

exclusively triable by learned Magistrate. Hence, there

is absolutely no reason to deny benefit of anticipatory

bail to the petitioners at this stage. Consequently, the

point No.1 is answered in the affirmative.

11. Point No.2: Hence, I proceed to pass the

respondent police for the offences

You might also like