Man denied bail while wife and daughters get it

S Shyam Prasad | NT

Bengaluru: A trial court in Bengaluru has denied anticipatory bail to a man while extending the same to his wife and two daughters in the same case.

The LXIV Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge, Kalpana MS gave this order on July 18 in an application filed by the 58-year-old man, his 46-year-old wife and two daughters aged 28 and 30.

All the four are facing a criminal case filed by the Magadi Road Police Station. They have been charged under Sections 465, 468, 471, 420, 506 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code which is pending before the II Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court.

The complaint against them was filed by one Ashwini Srikanth alleging that the four accused were sub-dealers of cars and had taken five cars belonging to her late husband Srikanth and were supposed to pay Rs.18.80 lakhs for it.

Allegedly one of the cars was sold but the payment was not done to the original car owner. When one of the cheques issued by the accused was dishonoured, Ashwini Srikanth filed a complaint with the police. The four accused then approached the court for anticipatory bail fearing arrest.

The Court in its judgement denied bail to the main accused Prasanna Kumar stating, “The Hon’ble court (Supreme Court) laid down that conduct of the accused plays a pivotal role in granting bail. In the light of the principles laid down in the referred decision and considering the serious nature of the offences and the punishment prescribed, this court is not inclined to extend discretionary relief of anticipatory bail in favour of petitioner No.1. Hence, the bail petition filed by the petitioner No.1 is liable to be dismissed.”

However, the other accused; the wife and daughters of Prasanna Kumar were on a different footing. The Court said, “So far as petitioners No.2 to 4 are concerned, at the outset, the alleged offences are triable by Magistrate. The said offences are neither punishable with death penalty or imprisonment for life. The commission of offences by petitioners No.2 to 4 is required to be established during trial. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the catena of decisions is pleased to lay down the legal doctrine that “Bail is a rule and jail is an exception”.

The Court considered the fact that the other accused were women.

“It is pertinent to note that the petitioners No.2 to 4 are women and provision to 437 of Code is applicable to them. In this context, it is profitable to refer the decision of the Coordinate Bench of Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in Kavitha Vs State of Karnataka,” the court said quoting “Even at this stage, if the court comes to the conclusion that a strong prima facie case is made out against a woman, still the court can exercise its discretion and it may enlarge a lady on bail with conditions.”

Granting the bail to the wife and daughters but denying it to the husband, the court said, “Under these facts and circumstances, I am of the opinion that, to strike the balance between individual liberty and humiliation due to unjustifiable detention against free and fair trial as well as welfare of society, it is proper to enlarge the petitioners No.2 to 4/accused No.2, 4, 3 on bail by imposing appropriate terms and conditions. Whereas, for the reasons discussed supra, this court opined that, petitioner No.1 is not entitled for grant of anticipatory bail.” (Crl.Mis.6337/2023)