ORDER

R. Ramakrishna, J. - Smt. Asiya wife of Syed Shakeel is the complainant. Initially, she has filed a private complaint before the XI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Mayohall, Bangalore, against 14 persons alleging the offences punishable under Sections 386, 307, 498-A, 506 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

2. This complaint was referred to the police for investigation under Section 156(3) of the Code.

3. The police have registered this case in Crime No. 680/94 and the investigation is in progress.

4. The marriage of the complainant was celebrated with one Syed Shakeel on 16.4.1994. Soon thereafter, the problem started, according to the complainant, that she was subjected to both mental and physical cruelly with a view to get more dowry from her parents.

5. Having apprehended that the police will arrest the persons named in the complaint (totally 14 persons), the learned City Civil Judge at Bangalore City was moved for grant of anticipatory bail and also regular bail. The learned Judge has granted regular bail in respect of the husband of the complainant. With regard to grant of anticipatory bail, the learned Judge has granted in favour of 8 persons and rejected the anticipatory bail as against the present petitioners.

6. With a view to know the true facts of the case the learned High Court Government Pleader is directed to make available the copy of the complaint as recorded by the Investigating Authorities. The complainant has made allegations against 14 persons as to how they all connived to cause both mental and physical cruelty.

7. Some of the information made in the complaint is quite disturbing and the authenticity of the same requires serious consideration.

8. Sri Shams A. Pathan, the learned Advocate for the petitioners, submits that the complainant has implicated the family members of her husband and several others who have absolutely no connection with the affairs of that family and therefore, the apprehension in the mind of the petitioners shall be decided objectively in considering their application.

9. The trial court appears to have rejected the anticipatory bail in respect of the above petitioners while granting the anticipatory bail in respect of 8 other persons accused of this offence is that certain allegations were made against these petitioners.

10. It is submitted that the first petitioner is the brother-in-law of the complainant; second petitioner is a family friend; third petitioner is the uncle of her husband; fourth petitioner is cousin and the fifth petitioner Narayan Swamy was a person living near that house.

11. The petitioners 2 and 3 are residents of Vijayanagar which is far away from Ganganahalli. The other petitioners arc in the close vicinity of the house where the complainant was living after her marriage.

12. Sri H. Hanumantharayappa, the learned High Court Government Pleader; who filed objections resisting this petition has mainly contended that the release of the petitioners on bail at this stage will hamper the investigation and further the investigation being in progress if they released on bail is not warranted.

13. While considering an application for grant of anticipatory bail the Court shall initially consider the nature of offence/s alleged against the applicants and on that basis the apprehension in their mind of having accused off a false offence should be considered. There would be cases where the applicants will commit offences which are on some occasion will not prove to warrant their custody, but still the Court should examine those aspects objectively on the basis of the materials. There would be cases where general allegation will be made against number of persons without any corroborations and that stage the apprehension of a person shall be examined with that object. It is not a case where the petitioners will, however, flee away from justice after having committed heinous offence. It is quite easy to rope in the