IN THE COURT OF THE LVIII ADDL.CITY CIVIL AND
SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH-59), BENGALURU CITY.
Dated this the 29th day of June, 2022
PRESENT:
Sri.N.Krishnaiah, B.Sc., LL.B.,
LVIII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge (CCH-59),
Bengaluru City.
CRL.MISC.No.5933/2022
PETITIONER
:
Arun Kumar,
S/o Govindaswamy,
Aged about 30 years,
Residing at No.92,
4th Cross, RRMR,
Wilson Garden,
Double Road,
Bengaluru Ц 560 021.
(By Sri.Bharath Kumar, Advocate)
V/S
RESPONDENT
:
The State of Karnataka by
Sanjay Nagar Police Station,
Bengaluru.
(By Learned Public Prosecutor)
ORDER ON BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 OF CR.P.C.
The petitioner has filed this petition under section 438
of Cr.P.C., for grant of anticipatory bail in the event of his
arrest by the respondent police in Crime No.61/2021 for the
offences punishable under sections 406, 420, 468, 471 and
2
C.Misc.No.5933/2022
C.Misc.No.3701/2020
120-B read with section 34 of IPC, pending on the file of 4 th
Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru City, by
allowing this petition in the ends of justice.

2.

He has further stated that, he is an innocent and
he has not committed the alleged offence and he has been
falsely implicated in this case. He hails from respectable
family and having deep roots in the society. He is a
permanent resident of the address shown in the cause title.
The accused Nos.2 and 3 have already released on bail by
the Hon’ble High court of Karnataka and therefore he is
entitled for bail on the ground of parity. He is ready to abide
by any terms and conditions that may be imposed by this
court and ready to offer surety. Hence, he requests to allow
this petition in the ends of justice.

3.

On the contrary, the learned Public Prosecutor has
filed his objections and strongly opposed to allow this
petition on the major ground that, there is sufficient prima
facie materials on record to show that this petitioner is also
involved in the alleged offences. The investigation is in
3
C.Misc.No.5933/2022
C.Misc.No.3701/2020
progress. At this stage, if he is released on bail, he may
tamper the documents and prosecution witnesses and he
may abscond from the jurisdiction of the court. Then fair
investigation cannot be conducted. Hence, at this stage,
this petitioner is not entitled for anticipatory bail as prayed
in this petition. Hence, he requests to reject the petition in
the ends of justice.

4.

In view of the aforesaid rival contentions, the
following points that would arise for my consideration are:
1. Whether the petitioner is entitled for
anticipatory bail under section 438 of
Cr.P.C. as prayed for in this petition?
2. What Order?
5.

Heard arguments of both the sides and perused
the records.

6.

My finding to the above points are as follows:
Point No.1:- In the Negative
Point No.2:- As per the final order
for the following;
4
C.Misc.No.5933/2022
C.Misc.No.3701/2020
REASONS
7.

POINT NO.1:-
Based on the first information
lodged by the first informant Sri.Sathyanarayana, the
respondent police have registered this case in crime
No.61/2021 for the offences punishable under sections 406,
420, 468, 471 and 120-B read with section 34 of IPC and
send FIR. The investigation is under progress. At this stage,
this petitioner has come up with this second petition
seeking anticipatory bail on the major ground that, there is
no prima facie materials to show that he is involved in the
alleged
offence.

He
is
not
required
for
custodial
interrogation.
8.

At the out set, as rightly submitted by the learned
Public Prosecutor, this court has already rejected the similar
bail petition filed by this petitioner in C.Misc.No.341/2022
by considering the nature and gravity of the alleged
offences. Even now, the investigation is not yet completed
and charge sheet is not filed. All most all the grounds urged
in this petition were already considered and held negative.

5
C.Misc.No.5933/2022
C.Misc.No.3701/2020
Hence, no changed circumstances made out to entertain
this second bail petition.

9.

No doubt, as submitted by the learned counsel
for the petitioner, the accused No.2 was released on bail by
the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in Crl.Petition No.
648/2022 under section 439 of Cr.P.C., and accused No.3
was also released on bail by the Hon’ble High Court of
Karnataka in Crl.Petition No.2767/2022 under section 438 of
Cr.P.C. But, against this petitioner/accused No.1, there is
serious allegation, as he himself, is the king pinner of the
entire incident.

He has forged the documents, obtained
loan from the Banks, misappropriated the same and
cheated the bank and also the complainant. Under these
circumstances, on the ground of parity, this petitioner
cannot be released on anticipatory bail.

10.

Moreover,
he
is
required
for
custodial
interrogation, if he is released on bail, he may tamper the
prosecution
witnesses
and
hamper
the
prosecution
evidence. He may abscond from the jurisdiction of the
court. Then fair investigation cannot be conducted. Under
6
C.Misc.No.5933/2022
C.Misc.No.3701/2020
all these circumstances and also considered the nature and
gravity of the alleged offences, it is not a fit case to extend
the discretionary
power in favour of this petitioner.

Therefore, the petitioner has not made out any sufficient
grounds to entertain this second petition and hence, the
same is deserves to be dismissed. In view of the above
reasons, I answer this point No.1 in the Negative.

11.

POINT NO.2:-
In the result, for the reasons
stated above, I proceed to pass the following;
ORDER
The bail application filed by the
petitioner
under
section
438
of
Cr.P.C. is hereby dismissed.
(Dictated to the Judgment Writer directly on computer,
corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in the open
court on this the 29th day of June 2022)
(N.KRISHNAIAH)
LVIII ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND
SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH-59)
BENGALURU CITY.

7
C.Misc.No.5933/2022
C.Misc.No.3701/2020
Order pronounced in the open
Court (vide separate order)
ORDER
The bail application filed by the
petitioner
under
section
438
of
Cr.P.C. is hereby dismissed.

LVIII ADDL.CITY CIVIL AND
SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH-59),
BENGALURU CITY.