ORDER : (C.S. Dias, J.) The application is filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, for an order of pre-arrest bail. 2. The petitioner is the first accused in Crime No.668/2024 of the Thrikkakara Police Station, Ernakulam, which is registered against three accused persons for allegedly committing the offences punishable under Sections 494 and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code ('IPC'). It is reported that during the pendency of this application, the offence under Section 377 of the IPC is also incorporated. 3. The essence of the prosecution case is that, the de-facto complainant got married to the first accused on 4.11.2018. The accused 2 and 3 are the parents of the first accused. Right from the fourth day of the marriage, the accused persons mentally and physically harassed the de-facto complainant by demanding more dowry. They compelled her to sell ten cents of her immovable property that was assigned by her father in her name. However, the de-facto complainant did not yield to the unlawful demands of the accused persons. The first accused abused and intimidated the de-facto complainant for questioning his outside-the-marriage relationship with other women. While so, on 4.12.2023, the first accused got married to a lady in Dubai. After that, on 11.2.2024, the marriage was solemnised at Sreenivasa Perumal Devasthanam, Muthalaipette. The accused 2 and 3 made all arrangements for the marriage. Thus, the accused have committed the above offences. 4. Heard; Sri. Abhilash O.U, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Smt. Pushpalatha M.K. the learned Public Prosecutor and Sri.Renjith R, the learned counsel appearing for the de-facto complainant (intervenor). 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is innocent of the accusations levelled against him. There is no material to substantiate the petitioner's culpability in the crime. The sole intention of the intervenor is to see that the petitioner is arrested and incarcerated. The marriage between the petitioner and the intervenor was solemnised on 4.11.2018. Although the intervenor has alleged that the accused persons had mentally and physically harassed her from the fourth day after her marriage, Annexure-A1 FIR is registered only on 20.7.2024, which is after nearly six years. This proves the falsity and frivolity of the crime. There is no plausible explanation for the inordinate delay in registering the FIR. Although the intervenor has alleged that the accused persons had mentally and physically harassed her from the fourth day after her marriage, Annexure-A1 FIR is registered only on 20.7.2024, which is after nearly six years. This proves the falsity and frivolity of the crime. There is no plausible explanation for the inordinate delay in registering the FIR. By Annexure-A8 order, the learned Sessions Judge granted the accused 2 and 3 an order of pre-arrest bail, but dismissed the petitioner's application principally because the petitioner has committed the offence under Section 494 of the IPC. The learned Sessions Judge lost sight of the fact that the offence under Section 494 of the IPC is bailable and non-cognizable. The offence can be taken cognizance only on a private complaint. The onus of proof is on the de-facto complainant to prove that the petitioner has contracted a second marriage, which is not a matter to be investigated by the Police. The documents produced by the intervenor are fabricated. The petitioner is a law-abiding citizen without any criminal antecedents. The petitioner is entitled to parity with the accused 2 and 3. The petitioner's custodial interrogation is not necessary, and no recovery is to be effected. Therefore, the application may be allowed. 6. The learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel appearing for the intervenor vehemently opposed the application. They submitted that there are incriminating materials to substantiate the petitioner's culpability in the crime. The petitioner has contracted a second marriage during the subsistence of his marriage with the intervenor. Therefore, the petitioner has committed the offence under Sec.494 of the IPC. Considering the gravity of the said offence, the learned Sessions Judge dismissed the petitioner's application for pre-arrest bail. There is no change of circumstance for the petitioner to have filed the present application. The investigation has now revealed that the petitioner has also committed the offence under Section 377 of the IPC. The petitioner is employed in Dubai. If the petitioner is granted an order of pre-arrest bail, there is every likelihood of him fleeing from justice, which would hamper the investigation. The investigation has now revealed that the petitioner has also committed the offence under Section 377 of the IPC. The petitioner is employed in Dubai. If the petitioner is granted an order of pre-arrest bail, there is every likelihood of him fleeing from justice, which would hamper the investigation. The learned counsel for the intervenor relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Orissa v. Sharat Chandra Sahu and another [ (1996) 6 SCC 435 ), to substantiate that, as per Section 155 (4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, there is no legal embargo in the Investigating Officer investigating a non-cognizable offence when a cognizable offence is also disclosed. Therefore, the application may be dismissed. 7. It is the intervenor's case that the petitioner and his parents had mentally and physically harassed her, from the fourth day after her marriage with the petitioner on 4.11.2018, demanding more dowry and to sell her property. Although the alleged harassment started in November 2018, Annexure-A1 FIR is registered only on 20.7.2024. Prima facie, there is no plausible explanation for the delay in registering the FIR. 8. By Annexure-A8 order, the learned Sessions Judge granted the accused 2 and 3 an order of pre-arrest bail, but dismissed the petitioner's application because he has contracted a second marriage. 9. One of the principal contentions of the learned Counsel for the petitioner was that the Police cannot investigate an offence under Section 494 of the IPC since it is non-cognizable. The question is no longer res integra in view of the principles laid down in Sharat Chandra Sahu's case. It is relevant to refer to the exposition of law in the said decision, which reads thus: “12. Sub-section (4) of Section 155 is a new provision introduced for the first time in the Code in 1973. This was done to overcome the controversy about investigation of non-cognizable offences by the police without the leave of the Magistrate. The statutory provision is specific, precise and clear and there is no ambiguity in the language employed in sub-section (4). Sub-section (4) of Section 155 is a new provision introduced for the first time in the Code in 1973. This was done to overcome the controversy about investigation of non-cognizable offences by the police without the leave of the Magistrate. The statutory provision is specific, precise and clear and there is no ambiguity in the language employed in sub-section (4). It is apparent that if the facts reported to the police disclose both cognizable and non-cognizable offences, the police would be acting within the scope of its authority in investigating both the offences as the legal fiction enacted in sub-section (4) provides that even a non-cognizable case shall, in that situation, be treated as cognizable. 13. This Court in Pravin Chandra Mody v. State of A.P. [ AIR 1965 SC 1185 ] has held that while investigating a cognizable offence and presenting a charge-sheet for it, the police are not debarred from investigating any non-cognizable offence arising out of the same facts and including them in the charge-sheet. 14. The High Court was thus clearly in error in quashing the charge under Section 494 IPC on the ground that the trial court could not take cognizance of that offence unless a complaint was filed personally by the wife or any other near relation contemplated by clause (c) of the proviso to Section 198(1)”. 10. The same view has been reiterated by the Honourable Supreme Court in Ushaben v. Kishorbhai Chunilal Talpada and others [ (2012) 6 SCC 353 ], in the following lines: “17. The above provisions lead us to conclude that if a complaint contains allegations about commission of offence under Section 498-A IPC which is a cognizable offence, apart from allegations about the commission of offence under Section 494 IPC, the court can take cognizance thereof even on a police report. xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx 19. The upshot of the above discussion is that no fetters can be put on the police preventing them from investigating the complaint which alleges offence under Section 498-A IPC and also offence under Section 494 IPC. In the circumstances, the appeal must succeed. The impugned order is set aside. Obviously, therefore, the direction to delete Section 494 IPC is set aside. The police shall investigate the complaint in accordance with law”. 11. In the circumstances, the appeal must succeed. The impugned order is set aside. Obviously, therefore, the direction to delete Section 494 IPC is set aside. The police shall investigate the complaint in accordance with law”. 11. In light of the above declaration of law, there is no semblance of doubt that the Investigating Officer has the power to proceed with the investigation of the present crime. But, it is to be remembered that the offence under Section 494 of the IPC is bailable. Therefore, the rejection of the petitioner’s application for pre-arrest bail by the Court of Session because he is alleged to have committed the said offence is wrong. 12. Now assuming that there are incriminating materials to prima facie find that the petitioner has committed the offence under Section 498 A of the IPC, which is a non-bailable offence, it is worth recollecting the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Preethi Gupta and another v. State of Jharkand and another [ 2010 KHC 4571): “30. It is a matter of common experience that most of these complaints under S.498 - A IPC are filed in the heat of the moment over trivial issues without proper deliberations. We come across a large number of such complaints which are not even bona fide and are filed with oblique motive. At the same time, rapid increase in the number of genuine cases of dowry harassment are also a matter of serious concern. 31. The learned members of the Bar have enormous social responsibility and obligation to ensure that the social fiber of family life is not ruined or demolished. They must ensure that exaggerated versions of small incidents should not be reflected in the criminal complaints. Majority of the complaints are filed either on their advice or with their concurrence. The learned members of the Bar who belong to a noble profession must maintain its noble traditions and should treat every complaint under S.498 - A as a basic human problem and must make serious endeavour to help the parties in arriving at an amicable resolution of that human problem. They must discharge their duties to the best of their abilities to ensure that social fiber, peace and tranquillity of the society remains intact. The members of the Bar should also ensure that one complaint should not lead to multiple cases. 32. They must discharge their duties to the best of their abilities to ensure that social fiber, peace and tranquillity of the society remains intact. The members of the Bar should also ensure that one complaint should not lead to multiple cases. 32. Unfortunately, at the time of filing of the complaint the implications and consequences are not properly visualized by the complainant that such complaint can lead to insurmountable harassment, agony and pain to the complainant, accused and his close relations. 33. The ultimate object of justice is to find out the truth and punish the guilty and protect the innocent. To find out the truth is a herculean task in majority of these complaints. The tendency of implicating husband and all his immediate relations is also not uncommon. At times, even after the conclusion of criminal trial, it is difficult to ascertain the real truth. The Courts have to be extremely careful and cautious in dealing with these complaints and must take pragmatic realities into consideration while dealing with matrimonial cases. The allegations of harassment of husband's close relations who had been living in different cities and never visited or rarely visited the place where the complainant resided would have an entirely different complexion. The allegations of the complaint are required to be scrutinized with great care and circumspection. Experience reveals that long and protracted criminal trials lead to rancour, acrimony and bitterness in the relationship amongst the parties. It is also a matter of common knowledge that in cases filed by the complainant if the husband or the husband's relations had to remain in jail even for a few days, it would ruin the chances of amicable settlement altogether. The process of suffering is extremely long and painful. 34. Before parting with this case, we would like to observe that a serious relook of the entire provision is warranted by the legislation. It is also a matter of common knowledge that exaggerated versions of the incident are reflected in a large number of complaints. The tendency of over implication is also reflected in a very large number of cases.” 13. Recently, the Honourable Supreme Court in Achin Gupta v. State of Haryana and another[2024 SCC OnLine SC 759] has categorically held as follows:- 32. Many times, the parents including the close relatives of the wife make a mountain out of a mole. The tendency of over implication is also reflected in a very large number of cases.” 13. Recently, the Honourable Supreme Court in Achin Gupta v. State of Haryana and another[2024 SCC OnLine SC 759] has categorically held as follows:- 32. Many times, the parents including the close relatives of the wife make a mountain out of a mole. Instead of salvaging the situation and making all possible endeavours to save the marriage, their action either due to ignorance or on account of sheer hatred towards the husband and his family members, brings about complete destruction of marriage on trivial issues. The first thing that comes in the mind of the wife, her parents and her relatives is the Police, as if the Police is the panacea of all evil. No sooner the matter reaches up to the Police, then even if there are fair chances of reconciliation between the spouses, they would get destroyed. The foundation of a sound marriage is tolerance, adjustment and respecting one another. Tolerance to each other's fault to a certain bearable extent has to be inherent in every marriage. Petty quibbles, trifling differences are mundane matters and should not be exaggerated and blown out of proportion to destroy what is said to have been made in the heaven. The Court must appreciate that all quarrels must be weighed from that point of view in determining what constitutes cruelty in each particular case, always keeping in view the physical and mental conditions of the parties, their character and social status. A very technical and hyper sensitive approach would prove to be disastrous for the very institution of the marriage. In matrimonial disputes the main sufferers are the children. The spouses fight with such venom in their heart that they do not think even for a second that if the marriage would come to an end, then what will be the effect on their children. Divorce plays a very dubious role so far as the upbringing of the children is concerned. The only reason why we are saying so is that instead of handling the whole issue delicately, the initiation of criminal proceedings would bring about nothing but hatred for each other. There may be cases of genuine ill-treatment and harassment by the husband and his family members towards the wife. The degree of such ill-treatment or harassment may vary. The only reason why we are saying so is that instead of handling the whole issue delicately, the initiation of criminal proceedings would bring about nothing but hatred for each other. There may be cases of genuine ill-treatment and harassment by the husband and his family members towards the wife. The degree of such ill-treatment or harassment may vary. However, the Police machinery should be resorted to as a measure of last resort and that too in a very genuine case of cruelty and harassment. The Police machinery cannot be utilised for the purpose of holding the husband at ransom so that he could be squeezed by the wife at the instigation of her parents or relatives or friends. In all cases, where wife complains of harassment or ill-treatment, Section 498A of the IPC cannot be applied mechanically. No FIR is complete without Sections 506(2) and 323 of the IPC. Every matrimonial conduct, which may cause annoyance to the other, may not amount to cruelty. Mere trivial irritations, quarrels between spouses, which happen in day-to-day married life, may also not amount to cruelty. xxx xxx xxx 40. We request the Legislature to look into the issue as highlighted above taking into consideration the pragmatic realities and consider making necessary changes in Sections 85 and 86 respectively of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, before both the new provisions come into force.” 14. Bhadres Bipinbhai Sheth v. 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 in family disputes. 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. 15. 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. 15. The learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that the Investigating Officer has filed an additional report stating that the petitioner has also committed an offence under Sec.377 of the IPC. The said accusation is conspicuously absent in the FIR or FIS. Therefore, prima facie, I find some frivolity in the accusation. Nonetheless, that is also a matter to be decided after trial. 16. After carefully considering the facts, the materials placed on record, and the law referred to in the above-cited decisions, and on considering the delay in registering the FIR and that the accused 2 and 3 have been granted an order of pre-arrest bail, I am satisfied that the petitioner has made out valid grounds to invoke the discretionary jurisdiction of this Court under Sec.482 of the BNSS. Hence, I am inclined to allow the application, which is subject to the following conditions: (I) The petitioner is directed to surrender before the Investigating Officer within one week from today. (ii) In the event of the petitioner’s arrest, the Investigating Officer shall release the petitioner on bail on him executing a bond for Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One lakh only) with two solvent sureties for the like amount each; (iii) The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer between 9 a.m. and 2 p.m. for three days from the date of his release. The Investigating Officer would be at liberty to interrogate the petitioner during the said period and also subject him to medical examination, including the conduct of his potency test, if necessary. The petitioner shall also appear before the Investigating Officer as and when directed. The Investigating Officer would be at liberty to interrogate the petitioner during the said period and also subject him to medical examination, including the conduct of his potency test, if necessary. The petitioner shall also appear before the Investigating Officer as and when directed. (iv) The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or procure to the survivor or her witnesses 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 petitioner shall surrender his passport before the jurisdictional court concerned within a period of one week from the date of his release on bail; (vi) The petitioner shall not get involved in any other offence while he is on bail; (vii) 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; (viii) Applications for deletion/modification of the bail conditions shall also be filed before the jurisdictional court; (ix) 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 petitioner even while the petitioner is 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 ]; (x) 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 shall be decided by the competent Court.