1. The application is filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (in short, ‘BNSS’), for an order of pre-arrest bail.

2. The petitioners are the accused Nos.1 to 3 in Crime No.851/2024 of the Petta Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram, which is registered against them for allegedly committing the offences punishable under Section 498-A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

3. The crux of the prosecution case is that: the first accused was married to the de-facto complainant/third respondent on 09.09.2015. The accused, in furtherance of their common intention, had mentally and physically harassed the third respondent for more dowry. Thus, the accused have committed the above offences.

4. Heard; Sri. T.I.Unniraja, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri. C. S. Hrithwik, the learned Senior Public Prosecutor.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are totally innocent of the accusations levelled against them. There is no material to substantiate their culpability in the crime. The first petitioner is the husband of the third respondent, and the petitioners 2 & 3 are the father and brother of the first petitioner. The marital relationship between the first petitioner and the third respondent is totally strained. The first petitioner and the third respondent were married on 09.09.2015. They have a child born in their wedlock. There are matrimonial proceedings pending between the parties before the Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram, as O.P.No.1832/2024 filed by the third respondent against the petitioner for a decree for recovery of money. There is an order of attachment before judgment passed in the said case. It is subsequent to the filing of the above proceedings that the Annexure-A5 First Information Report [FIR] has been registered on 08.08.2024, alleging that the petitioners have mentally and physically harassed the third respondent. The fact that the alleged incidents occurred from 23.06.2017 to 23.05.2024; but Annexure-A5 FIR was registered only on 08.08.2024, proves the falsity and frivolity in the present crime. The petitioners are law-abiding citizens without any criminal antecedents. The sole intention of the third respondent is to pressurise the petitioners to succumb to her unlawful demands. The petitioners’ custodial interrogation is not necessary for the proper investigation of the crime. Hence, the application may be allowed.

6. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application. He submitted that the investigation is in progress. He also stated that if the petitioners are granted an order of pre-arrest bail, there is every likelihood of them intimidating the witnesses and tampering with evidence. Hence, the application may be dismissed.

7. The prosecution case against the petitioners is that, they had mentally and physically harassed the third respondent, demanding more dowry. Indisputably, the marital relationship between the first petitioner and the third respondent is strained, and there are matrimonial proceedings pending before the Family Court between the parties. I also find sufficient force in the contention that even though the marriage was solemnized on 09.09.2024 and the alleged incidents took place from 23.06.2017 Annexure-A5 FIR was registered only on 08.08.2024. There is no plausible explanation for the delay. Nevertheless, these are matters to be investigated and ultimately decided after trial.

8. In Bhadres Bipinbhai Sheth vs State of Gujarat and another [2015 KHC 4579], the Hon’ble Supreme Court has succinctly culled out the principles to grant an order of pre-arrest bail. It is observed that the courts should carefully examine the complaint made against the accused when considering a bail application, especially to find out if it is a false or frivolous complaint. The gravity of each charge and the exact role of the accused should also be properly comprehended. The discretion to grant an order of pre-arrest bail must be exercised based on the available materials and the facts of the particular case, and there is no requirement that the accused must make out a special case to exercise the power to grant anticipatory bail. The discretion of the Court should be exercised with due care and circumspection. Similarly, the frivolity in the prosecution has to be examined, particularly whether the accused would be unjustifiably harassed, humiliated, or detained.

9. After bestowing my anxious consideration to the facts, the rival submissions made across the Bar, the materials placed on record, and taking note of the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the afore-cited decision, and on considering that the relationship between the petitioners and the third respondent is strained, and there are matrimonial proceedings pending before the Family Court and, further, there is a delay in lodging Annexure-A5 FIR, I am convinced and satisfied that the petitioners have made out satisfactory grounds to invoke the discretionary jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the BNSS. Hence, I am inclined to allow the application, but subject to stringent conditions.

10. In the result, the application is allowed, subject to the following conditions:

(i) The petitioners are directed to surrender before the Investigating Officer within 10 days from today.

(ii) In the event of the petitioners’ arrest, the Investigating Officer shall release the petitioners on bail on them executing a bond for Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) each with two solvent sureties for the like amount each;

(iii) The petitioners shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when required;

(iv) The petitioners shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or procure to the victim or any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the court or to any Police Officer or tamper with the evidence in any manner, whatsoever;

(v) The petitioners shall not get involved in any other offence while on bail;

(vi) In case of violation of any of the conditions mentioned above, the jurisdictional court shall be empowered to consider the application for cancellation of bail, if any filed, and pass orders on the same, in accordance with law.

(vii) Applications for deletion/modification of the bail conditions shall also be filed before the court below.

(viii) Needless to mention, it would be well within the powers of the Investigating Officer to investigate the matter and, if necessary, to effect recoveries on the information, if any, given by the petitioners even while the petitioners are on bail as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) And another [2020 (1) KHC 663].

(ix) The observations made in this order are only for the purpose of considering the application and the same shall not be construed as an expression on the merits of the case, which is to be decided by the competent Courts.