IN THE COURT OF THE CITY CIVIL AND SESSION JUDGE
AT BENGALURU
CRI, MISC NO /2024
IN THE MATTER OF:
1. Shridhar (Purushottam)
Son of Honnagiri Urubuduse
Age about 24,
Residing at kempegowda circle,
Amruthuru,kunigal taluk
Tumkuru District -572130
Accused no 1
2. Lalita (Netravati)
Son of Ramesh
Age about 56,
Residing at kempegowda circle,
Amruthuru,kunigal taluk
Tumkuru District -572130
Accused no 4 ........... Petitioner
And
The State of Karnataka
PSI North women police station,
Bengaluru city
By public prosecutor ...........Respondent
FIR No.: 32/2024
U/s: 366,363,342,506 of IPC
P.S.: NORTH WOMEN POLICE STATION
APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 438 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL
PROCEDURE 1973 FOR GRANT OF BAIL
Most Respectfully Show:
1. The address of the petitioner for purpose of service of summons,
court notice etc, is as mentioned in the cause title and may also be
served through his council Mrs Arati R Advocates, saptagiri
extention tumkuru.#9822128907
2. The address of the Respondent for similar purpose is as per the
cause title.the Respondent may also be, for the purpose of serving
summons court notice etc , served through public prosecutor.
3. That the present application under section 439 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure 1973 is being filed by the Petitioner for
seeking grant of bail in FIR No. 32/2024 registered at north
women Police Station. For the alleged offences,punishable U/S
363,366,342,506 of IPC, The said FIR is submitted to the 32nd Addl
CMM Court, Bengaluru. The present petition is being moved as
the Petitioner has been arrested on 22/5/2024 in connection with
the said FIR. The petitioner is now in judicial custody.
The copy of FIR and order sheet is filed here with and
marked as Document No 1 and 2
4. That the Petitioner is innocent and is being falsely implicated in
the above said case as he has nothing to do with the matter.
BRIEF FACT OF CASE :-
1. It is most respectfully submitted that, on 18/5/2024 the
respondent police have registered a case in crime no 32/2024
against the accused persons and others for alleged offences
punishable u/s 363,342,366,506 on the basis of false complaint
given by complainant to the public prosecutor, north women
police station.
2. The allegations in the complaint as set out in the FIR are that, the
complainant police received the information 16/2/2024 at 2 pm in
the afternoon, it is alleged that the girl has eloped with Accused
no 1 shridhar ,so after assuming this the complainant has
registered a complaint in north women police station in
Bengaluru.and the FIR register against accused persons namely
Shridhar (Accuse no 1) Ramesh (Accuse no 2) lalita (nethravati)
(Accuse no 3) and Shrinivas (Accused no 4).
3. It is also alleged that the girl has left her house on 6/2/2024 which
has also been reported to the Amruthur police station, at thet
time the police reached the girl and brought her to the Amruthur
police station and consoled the girl and she was suggested with
better opinion and was asked not to do such things and she was
sent back to her home in Tubinkere with her family.
4. The victim girl also file an complaint against her family members
on 17/5/2024 in DLSA District legal service authority tumkuru
stating that her parents has been harassing her physically and
mentally and pressuring her regarding her marriage. The victim
girl also stated that she has been volunterly left her house due to
torture of her family and she has been before DLSA Tumkuru
seeking the protection. The certified copy of complaint and shara
has been marked and produced in Document no 3.
5. That the respondent police have registered a case in crime no
32/2024 against the accused person for alleged offence
punishable u/s 363,366,342,506 of IPC hence petition for grant
bail u/s 439 of Cr.P.C on the following among other grounds.
6. The respondent poilice under the influence of the complainant are
repeatedly knocking the doors of the petitioner and repeatedly
calling him tro aapear before the police without serving any notice
to him.the petitioner is having a real apprehension that any time
the respondent police shall come and arrest him and forcefully on
the follorecord any false statement which are against to him. The
petitioner came to know from some reliable source that petitioner
might at any time arrested by respondent police on above said
false charges and baseless allegations. Hence this petition for
grant anticipatory bail u/s 438 of Cr.P.C o the following among
other grounds.
Grounds
1. It is submitted that the petitioner has not committed any offence
as alleged in the complaint and the respondent police have
registered a false case against accused persons. There are no
reasonable grounds to believe that the petitioner and others has
committed the alleged offence. The complainant police are
conducting investigation rather aggressively on the behest of the
complainant without realizing that the petitioner are not involved
in any offence. However the petitioner are having real
apprehension of being arrested by the respondent police.
2. The petitioners are innocent of commission of the offences
alleged against them. The respondent police are trying to lugged
the petitioner in the alleged crime for extraneous reason with
obligue notice and after due deliberation to subdue the
petitioners for safeguarding themselves and further to wreck
vengeance.
3. That the alleged involvement of the petitioners in this incident is
fictitious and false.There are no prima facia allegations against the
petitioners that the very plain reading of the complaint itself
repudiates the fact thet there no incriminating material brought
on record to satisfy that the petitioners is indulged in alleged
offence.no where in the complaint it is stated that the petitioners
is directly involved in the offence alleged against them.
4. The respondent police have made deliberate and systematic effort
to lug the petitioner into crime though he is nothing to do with
the crime and there is no iota of allegations/statement against the
petitioners regarding the alleged offence.
5. The petitioner hails from respectable family. That the respondent
police have arrested petitioner no 2 and 4 in the early morning at
there house Amruthur, kunigal taluk tumkur district.unfortunately
all of a sudden they were pulled amidst the early in the morning
and have arrested.
6. The entire family including the old age parents were arrested by
the respondent police. that the petitioner have no any criminal
antecedent and have not undergone imprisonment on conviction
by a court in respect of any offences. They are permanently
residing at the address stated in the cause list.
7. Even the very plain reading of the complaint enumerates the fact
that the petitioners herein has not committed any of the offence
as arraigned by the respondent police. That out of frustration and
vindictiveness the complainant and police have filed the false
complaint against the petitioners and wrongly arrested them in
connection with the case.
8. That the respondent police have implicated the petitioner in
present case though they have not committed any offence. There
are neither any solid evidence nor there exist any tangible
evidences showing the involvement of petitioner in alleged act.
More that this there is no particular allegation against the
petiotioner or any overt act attributed to the involvement of the
petitioner, hence none of the offences attract petitioner.
9. That the respondent police are said to have wrongly implicated
the petitioners in the present case just because their daughter has
filed complaint against her own parents before DLSA, ther are
neither any eye witness nor there exist any tangible evidence
showing the involvement of petitioner in the alleged act. More
than this there is no particular allegation against the petitioner or
any overt act attribute to the involvement of the petitioner, hence
none of the offence attract to the petitioners.
10. That the respondent have not observed that the victim girl
herself has left the house once before stating that she has been
harassed and tortured mentally and physically by her family
members so the police and complainant stating that the petitioner
are involved in the such act. So it will not attract any of the
provision of sec 366 of IPC will be made out by the respondent
police or misconceived by the lower court.
11. The respondent police are said to have arranged the
petitioner as one of the accused persons and have wrongly alleges
that they are involved in the offence
12. The Hon’ble supreme court in Rini Johar v State of M.P
(2016) SCC 703 and in Arnesh kumar v State of Bihar 2014 8 SCC
273 while dwelling upon the concept of arrest , has observed as
follow.
5. Arrest bring humilitation, curtalils freedom and casts scars forever.
Law maker know it so also the police . There is a battle between
the lawmaker and the police and it seems that the police has not
learned its lesson : the lesson implicit and embodied in Cr.P.C it
has not come its colonial image despite six decades of
independence. It is largely considered as a tool of harassment
appression and surely not considered a friend of public. The need
for caution in the exercising drastic power of arrest has been
emphasized time and again by the courts but has not yielded
desired result, power to arrest greatly contributes its arrogance so
also the failure f magistracy to check it. Not only this, the power of
arrest is one of the lucrative source of police corruption. The
attitude to arrest first and then proceed to rest is despicable. It
has become a handy tool to the police officers who lack sensitivity
or act with oblique motive.
7.1 A police officer before arrest , in such cases has to be further
satisfied that such arrest is necessary to prevent such person from
commiting further offence or for proper investigation of the case
or to prevent accused from causing the evidence of the offence to
disappear or tampering with such evidence in manner or to
prevent such person from making any inducement, threat or
promise to witness so as to dissuade him from disclosing such
facts to the court or the police officer, or unless such accused is
arrested his presence in court whenever required cannot be
ensured. These are the conclusions which one may reach based
on facts.
7.3 in pith and core the police officer before arrest must put
question to himself, why arrest ? is it really required? What
purpose it will serve? What object it will achieve it is the only after
this question are addressed and one or other conditions as
enumerated above is satisfied the power of arrest need to be
exercised. In fine, before arrest the police officers should have
reason to believe on the basis of information and material that
the accused has commited the offence. Apart from this the police
officer has to be satisfied further that the arrest is necessary for
one or more purposes envisaged by sub clauses (a) to (e) of cl 1 of
section 41 Cr.P.C.
13. The petitioner further submits that there are actual and real
apprehension that the respondent police shall apprehend them
under the influence of the complainant. Hence the petitioner are
having genuine and reasonable apprehension of being arrested by
the police. Hence this petition
14. The petitioner humbly submits that, they are agricultural
laborers, innocent and respectable citizens. There is not even
remote chance of them being involved in any allegation as
assigned by the respondent police. There is no past criminal
records/history of the petitioners. The petitioners hails from
respected family and owns both movable and immovable
properties.
15. The petitioner offers proper and respectable surety if they
are let on bail. The petitioners undertakes that they will not
tamper the prosection witness and they will abide by the temrms
and conditions that they may be imposed by the Hon’ble
court.and that he will cooperate with the investigating officer, the
petitioner undertakes that he will be making available to the
investigating officer as and when required.
16. The petitioner submits that they have not filed any other
similar petition before any other court for the same relief.
s
17. The petitioner craves the permission of the Hon’ble court to
urge additional grounds at the time of arguments.
Wherefore the petitioner respectfully prays that the Hon’ble court
be pleased to pass the order to enlarge them on bail in crime no
32/2024 for the offence punishable u/s 366,363,342,506 of IPC
pending in the file of 32nd Addl Chief magistrate court at Bengaluru
in the interest of justice and equity.
Bengaluru
Dated 29/5/2024 Advocate for petitioner
