1
Crl.Misc.8339/2023
KABC010229242023
IN THE COURT OF THE LXVIII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND
SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY (CCH-69)
Dated this the 26 th day of September
2023
:PRESENT:
Sri.Sabappa, B.Com., LLB (Spl.)
LXVIII Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru City.
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.8339/2023
PETITIONER :
Balaji Nayak @ Balaji,
S/o Pakir Nayak,
Aged about 25 years,
R/at Balamana Grama,
Maliganahalli Post,
Pavagada Taluk,
Tumakuru District.
(By Sri. Krishna Naik, Adv.,)
V/s
RESPONDENT :
State by;
Nandini Layout Police Station,
Bengaluru.

(Represented by Public Prosecutor)
2
Crl.Misc.8339/2023
ORDER ON BAIL PETITION U/SEC.438 OF CR.P.C.
This petition is filed by the petitioner under Sec.438 of
Cr.P.C., seeking anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest in
connection with Cr.No.216/2017 (C.C.No.14805/2018) registered
by Nandini Layout police, Bangalore, for the offences punishable
under Secs.406, 420, 120B r/w 34 of I.P.C.
2.

The brief facts of the case of the petitioner is that, the
respondent police registered case against him in Cr.No.216/2017 on
the basis of the complaint lodged by one Sandeep Gupta. It is
alleged in the complaint that, during the year 2014 the complainant
purchased the camera NIKOND-5100 INTERCHANGEABLE LENS.
Complainant had created a profile in the name of Rahul Sharma and
I-RENT SHARE website and posted an advertisement for rent of
camerea. On 04.05.2017, one Kumar Akshay called from his mobile
number 9591159859 and sought for camera on rental basis and
thereby he contacted the complainant and complainant handed over
the camera to him for rent of Rs.800/- per day. He took the camera
on rental for 3-4 days. After 4 days when the complainant tried to
call Kumar Akshay, at that time his mobile number was switched off.
Hence, he lodged the complaint. Thereby, the respondent police are
making hectic efforts to apprehend the petitioner. Hence, the
petitioner is apprehending his arrest by the respondent police.
Thereby, he has approached this Court seeking anticipatory bail.

3
Crl.Misc.8339/2023
3. The grounds urged by the petitioner are as under.
The petitioner submitted that, he is innocent of the alleged
offences. He has got tenable defence. He has been falsely
implicated in the charge sheet at the instance of the persons who
are inimically disposed towards him. The alleged offences are not
punishable with death or imprisonment for life. The entire allegation
made by the complainant is canard and frivolous. The accused No.1
has committed the offence and this petitioner is nowhere connected
to the above case. The complainant has lodged the complaint on
15.06.2017 and the name of the petitioner is shown later on
24.05.2018. The police intentionally entered the name of the
petitioner in the charge sheet. After lapse of one year the charge
sheet has been filed. The petitioner has not at all cheated the
complainant. The name of the petitioner is not found in the FIR. He
is stranger to the alleged incident. The respondent police have
completed the investigation and submitted the charge sheet before
the
IV
ACMM,
Bengaluru,
which
is
numbered
as
C.C.No.14805/2018. In the order sheet in C.C.No.14805/2018 on
22.05.2019 summons was re-issued to the accused. But on the next
date of hearing i.e., on 25.09.2019 even though the S/S was not
served the learned Magistrate issue S/S and NBW to accused
Nos.1 and 2. Again on 21.11.2019 the learned Magistrate issued
proclamation along with the attachment of movable and immovable
properties which is not correct. There are no reasonable grounds to
believe that the petitioner is guilty of the alleged offence. He hails
from respectable family. He has got deep roots in the society. He is
4
Crl.Misc.8339/2023
a permanent resident of Balammana Village, Kasaba Hobli,
Pavagada Taluk, Tumkuru District. He is ready to abide by any
conditions imposed by this Court. Hence, sought for grant of
anticipatory bail.
4.

The learned Public Prosecutor has filed objections to
the bail petition along with the report of the P.S.I, Nandini Layout
Police Station. In the objections the learned Public Prosecutor has
narrated the facts as stated in the charge sheet. The investigation is
case is completed and the respondent police have submitted the
charge sheet. During the course of investigation the I.O has visited
the spot and conducted spot panchanama. The petitioner is arrested
by Malleshwaram police in Cr.No.107/2017 for the offence
punishable U/Sec.41(D) and 379 of I.P.C. Thereafter, they have
recorded the voluntary statement of the petitioner and another
accused. The petitioner is involved in the alleged offences. If the
petitioner is granted bail, there is every chance that he may
abscond, commit similar offences and may tamper the prosecution
witnesses. Therefore, the P.P has sought for rejection of bail.
5.

Heard both sides. Perused the materials on record.

6. The points that arise for my consideration are:
1. Whether the petitioner has made out sufficient
grounds for grant of anticipatory bail as sought
for?
2. What order?

5
7.

Crl.Misc.8339/2023
My findings to the above points are as follows:
Point No.1 :
In the Affirmative,
Point No.2 :
As per final order,
for the following;
REASONS
8.

POINT No.1: On perusal of the bail petition and
objection statement, it is noticed that, the respondent police
registered case against the petitioner in Cr.No.216/2017 for the
offences punishable U/Secs.406, 420, 120B r/w 34 of IPC. After
completion of the investigation the respondent police have filed the
charge sheet against the accused persons.
The learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued and
submitted that, the petitioner is innocent of the alleged offences. He
has got valid and tenable defence. He has been falsely implicated
by the petitioner. The incident took place in the year 2017. on
24.05.2018 the police intentionally entered the name of the
petitioner in the charge sheet in collusion with the complainant and
made this petitioner as scape goat. In the order sheet in
C.C.No.14805/2018 on 22.05.2019 summons was re-issued to the
accused. But on the next date of hearing i.e., on 25.09.2019 even
though the S/S was not served the learned Magistrate issue S/S
and NBW to accused Nos.1 and 2. Again on 21.11.2019 the learned
Magistrate issued proclamation along with the attachment of
movable and immovable properties. The petitioner has not cheated
6
Crl.Misc.8339/2023
the complainant. The petitioner is a resident of Pavagada Taluk,
Tumakuru District. He is ready to abide by the terms and conditions
imposed by this Court.

9. The prosecution contended that, the I.O has already filed
the charge sheet against the petitioner. The present petitioner is
absconding accused. Thereby, it is mentioned in the final report. In
case, the petitioner is enlarged on bail, he will try to abscond and
tamper the prosecution witnesses. Hence, bail may be rejected.

10. On perusal of the complaint and FIR, it is noticed that one
Sandeep Gupta has lodged the complaint before the respondent
police
on
15.06.2017.

Later
on,
the
I.O
has
registered
Cr.No.216/2017 and proceeded with the investigation. After
completion of investigation the I.O has filed the final report against
the petitioner and another. The present petitioner is shown as
accused No.3 in the final report. This goes to show that at present
the petitioner is not required for interrogation by the police.
Moreover, the trial court registered the case against the petitioner
and another and issue S/S. Later on, the trial court has issued NBW
against the petitioner. It is not duly served upon the petitioner. Again
the trial court issued proclamation against the petitioner and
another. Thereby, the petitioner has approached this Court. It is
noticed that, the alleged offences are not punishable with death or
imprisonment for life. It is triable by the Magistrate Court.

7
Crl.Misc.8339/2023
11. At the same time, I would like to refer the citations
reported in 2014(8) SCC 273, in the case of Arnesh Kumar V/s
State of Bihar & another, wherein it is held that :
УDirections issued herein, held, shall apply to
all such cases where offence is punishable with
imprisonment for a term which may be less than 7
years or which may extend to 7 years whether with or
without fine Ц Police Officers shall not arrest the
accused unnecessarily and Magistrate shall not
authorise detention casually and mechanically Ц
Failure to comply with these directions, shall, apart
from rendering police officers concerned liable for
departmental action, also make them liable to be
punished for contempt of court Ц Authorising
detention without recording reasons by Judicial
Magistrate concerned shall be liable to departmental
action by appropriate High Court Ц Copy of Judgment
to be forwarded to Chief Secretaries as also Dgs of
Police of all States and UT and Registrar General of
all High Courts for ensuring compliance therewith Ц
Police Ц Arrest Ц Penal Code,1860 Ц S.498-A Ц
Constitution of India, Arts.21 and 22(2).Ф
The facts and circumstances discussed in the above respected
citation and the facts and circumstance of the present case are one
and the same. Thereby, the above respected citation is aptly
applicable to the present case on hand.

In view of the above
citations as well as the materials placed by the petitioner, this Court
come to the conclusion that the petitioner is able to made out
sufficient grounds to enlarge him on bail.

8
Crl.Misc.8339/2023
12. At this juncture, this Court feels that, while considering the
prayer for grant of anticipatory bail, a balance has to be struck
between two factors namely, no prejudice should be caused to the
free, fair and full investigation and there should be prevention of
harassment, humiliation and unjustified detention of the accused. In
view of the above discussion, I come to the conclusion that at this
stage the petitioner has made out sufficient grounds to enlarge him
on bail. The petitioner is a permanent resident of address mentioned
in the cause title. He is ready to abide by any conditions imposed by
this Court. At the same time, I would like to mentioned that, bail is a
rule jail is exception. Thereby this court come to conclusion that if
some stringent conditions are imposed on the petitioner and granted
bail, the apprehension of the prosecution could be safeguarded.
Otherwise the family of petitioner will be put to humiliation.
Accordingly, I have answered point No.1 in the Affirmative.
13.

POINT NO.2:
In view of my findings point No.1, I
proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
Bail
petition
filed
by
the
petitioner
under
Sec. 438 of Cr.P.C is hereby allowed.
Petitioner
anticipatory
bail
is
in
ordered
the
to
event
be
of
released
his
arrest
on
in
Cr.No.216/2017 (C.C.No.14805/2018) of Nandini
Layout P.S., on executing his personal bond for
9
Crl.Misc.8339/2023
Rs.50,000/- with two sureties for the like sum on the
following conditions.
1. The petitioner shall appear before the trial
court within 15 days from the date of this order.
2. The petitioner shall not tamper with the
Prosecution witnesses either directly or indirectly in
any manner.
3.

He
shall
regularly
appear
before
the
concerned court as and when required.
4. He shall not abscond from the ordinary
residence and he should furnish the address proof to
the concerned police.
5. He shall not indulge in any kind of offence.
6. He shall not leave the jurisdiction of the court
without prior permission.
If any of the above conditions violated the IO is
at liberty to move for cancellation of bail.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, typed by her directly on Computer,
revised, corrected and then pronounced by me in the open court on this
the 26 th day of September, 2023)
(Sabappa)
LXVIII Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru City.

10
Crl.Misc.8339/2023
26.09.2023
Petr. By Ц K.N.
Resp. by Ц P.P.
For orders.
ORDERS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN
COURT, VIDE SEPARATE ORDER
Bail petition filed by the petitioner under
Sec. 438 of Cr.P.C is hereby allowed.
Petitioner is ordered to be released on
anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest in
Cr.No.216/2017 (C.C.No.14805/2018) of
Nandini Layout P.S., on executing his
personal bond for Rs.50,000/- with two
sureties for the like sum on the following
conditions.

11
Crl.Misc.8339/2023
1. The petitioner shall appear before
the trial court within 15 days from the date of
this order.
2. The petitioner shall not tamper with
the Prosecution witnesses either directly or
indirectly in any manner.
3. He shall regularly appear before the
concerned court as and when required.
4. He shall not abscond from the
ordinary residence and he should furnish the
address proof to the concerned police.
5. He shall not indulge in any kind of
offence.
6. He shall not leave the jurisdiction of
the court without prior permission.
If any of the above conditions violated
the IO is at liberty to move for cancellation of
bail.

LXVIII A.C.C & S.J,
Bengaluru City.

12
Crl.Misc.8339/2023