KABC010163012022
IN THE COURT OF THE LXIII ADDL.CITY CIVIL &
SESSIONS JUDGE (CCHн64) AT BENGALURU
Dated this the 2nd day of July 2022
: PRESENT :
Sri.A.V.Patil, B.Com., LL.B.,
LXIII ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS
JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS NO.6079/2022
PETITIONERS
:
1. Smt.Baseera
W/o Muneer Sab,
Aged about 55 years,
Residing at No.105/5,
Andrahalli Main Road,
Hegganahalli, Bengaluru.
2. Mehaboob
S/o Muneer Sab,
Aged about 37 years,
Residing at No.81, 4th Cross,
Kanakanagara, Marenahalli,
Bengaluru.
3. Smt.Mujasim
D/o Muneer Sab,
W/o Toufiq Ahammed,
2
Crl.Misc.6079/2022
Aged about 37 years,
Residing at No.29, 3rd Cross,
Chamundeshwarinagara,
Laggere, Bengaluru.
(By Sri.Avinasha.P., Advocate)
н Vs н
RESPONDENT
:
State by Rajagopalanagara Police
Station, Bengaluru.
(By Public Prosecutor)
ORDER
The petitioners have filed this petition u/s 438 of
Cr.P.C., for their release on bail in the event of their arrest in
connection with a case registered in Cr.No.58/2022 of
respondent Police Station for the offences punishable u/s 417,
420, 406, 418, 465, 467, 468, 504, 506, 120(B) r/w 34 of IPC.
2.

It is stated in the bail application that the petitioners are
innocent and have not committed any offences as alleged in
the complaint. The complainant suppressing the entire true
facts filed PCR No.20542/2021 because the petitioners are
absolute owners of the property bearing Site No.7, Assessment
No.85, Katha No.340 measuring 40 x 15 situated at
3
Crl.Misc.6079/2022
Hegganahalli village, Yeshwanthapura Hobli, Bengaluru. The
petitioners does not know accused No.4 and 5 and have not at
all approached the complainant to offer to sell the said
property, but the complainant with malafide intention has
lodged a false complaint against the petitioners. The accused
No.4 and 5 are granted by this Court in Crl.Mis.5436/2022
and on the ground of parity these petitioners are also entitled
for bail. The petitioner No.1 is old aged women and petitioner
No.2 and 3 have small kids and they are doing coolie work.
They have to take care of their parents and small kids. The
offences alleged against the petitioners are not exclusively
punishable either with death or imprisonment for life. They
are the only earning members of their respective family. They
hail from respectable family and have no bad antecedents.
They are ready and willing to abide by the terms and
conditions imposed while releasing them on bail. They
apprehend their arrest. Hence, prayed to grant anticipatory
bail.
3.

The learned P.P. has opposed the bail application by
filing the objections statement. According to him, the materials
collected during the investigation prima facie disclose that the
petitioners have committed the offences alleged against them.

4
Crl.Misc.6079/2022
Hence, prayed to dismiss the bail petition filed by the
petitioners.
4.

Heard
the
arguments
from
learned
Counsel
for
petitioners and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the
materials placed on record.
5.

The points that arise for my consideration are:
1.

Whether the petitioners are entitled for
anticipatory bail as prayed in the application
filed under Sec.438 of Cr.P.C.?

2. What order?
6.

My answer to the above points are as follows:
Point No.1:
Point No.2:
in the affirmative
As per final order for the following;
REASONS
7.

Point No.1:н As per the allegations made in the private
complaint filed by the complainant that accused No.1 was the
absolute owner of the property bearing site No.7, Khata
No.340 measuring 40 feet X 15 feet situated at Hegganhalli
village, Bangalore South Taluk. Accused No.1 to 3 approached
the complainant through brokers i.e., petitioners and offer the
sale of the sale property. After negotiations accused No.1 to 3
5
Crl.Misc.6079/2022
agreed to sell the said property for consideration of
Rs.15,50,000/н, Accused No.1 received Rs.50,000/н from
complainant towards advance and agreed to execute the
registered sale deed within three months. Thereafter accused
received in total of Rs.10,25,000/н on different dates. But
subsequently accused failed to execute the sale deed. On
enquiry complainant came to know that accused colluded with
each other sold the said property to one Venkatesh on
29.04.2019. According to the complainant all the accused with
common intention by committing fraud with fraudulent
intention alienated the said property to some other and
thereby cheated him.

When the complainant demanded to
repay the amount, accused people abused in filthy language
and threatened with dire consequences and not return the
amount received by him. Hence, the complainant filed the
private complaint. The said private complaint referred to the
police for investigation u/s 156(3) of Cr.P.C. On the basis said
complaint, the respondentнPolice registered the FIR against the
accused for the offences punishable u/s 417, 420, 406, 418,
465, 467, 468, 504, 506, 120(B) r/w 34 of IPC. The
petitioners are arrayed the petitioner as accused No.1 to 3.
8.

At the outset it is material to note that as per the records
6
Crl.Misc.6079/2022
produced by the petitioners it is clear that petitioners are only
the owners of the property. Though the offences alleged for
the offences punishable u/s 420, 406, 467, 468, 120(B) r/w
34 of IPC are non bailable in nature, they are not punishable
with death imprisonment. As per the averments of bail
application, the petitioners are permanent residents of the
address shown in the petition. They are ready to furnish the
surety and ready to abide by the conditions that may be
imposed by this Court on them. The involvement of petitioner
is yet to be proved. The truth is to be ascertained during the
course of trial. The offences alleged against the petitioners are
triable by Magistrate.

The offences alleged against the
petitioners are cognizable offences and as per the provisions of
Cr.P.C. the I.O. may arrest the petitioners without warrant.
The apprehension of the prosecution can be taken care of by
putting suitable conditions. Having regards to the facts and
circumstances of the case, gravity of the offences alleged,
punishment prescribed for them and apprehension of the
arrest of the petitioners by the I.O. in the considered opinion
of this Court the petitioners are entitled to grant anticipatory
bail by imposing appropriate conditions. Accordingly, I answer
this point in the affirmative.
9.

Point No.2:н In view of my findings on Point No.1, I
7
Crl.Misc.6079/2022
proceed to pass the following;
ORDER
The bail petition filed by petitioners u/s 438 of
Cr.P.C is hereby allowed and anticipatory bail is
granted.
In the event of their arrest by the I.O. in Crime
No.58/2022 of Rajagopalangara Police Station, is
directed to enlarge them on bail on executing their
personal bond for Rs.50,000/н each with one surety
for like sum subject to following conditions:
1. Petitioner No.1 to 3 shall appear before the
respondent police within 20 days from the date of
this order.
2. Petitioner No.1 to 3 shall not tamper with the
prosecution witnesses in any manner.
3. Petitioner No.1 to 3 shall appear before the
Court during trial and coнoperate for the disposal
of the case.
4. Petitioner No.1 to 3 shall not commit similar to
the offence alleged against them.
5. Petitioner No.1 and 2 shall appear before the
I.O. as and when called for investigation.
6. Petitioner No.1 to 3 shall furnish the attested
copy of their respective Adhaar cards and present
residential address proof to the I.O.
Notwithstanding this order of anticipatory bail
8
Crl.Misc.6079/2022
do not in any manner limit or restrict the rights and
duties of the police or investigating agency, to
investigate into the charges against the petitioners.
(Dictated to the Judgment Writer, typed by her, taken print
out, corrected by me and then pronounced in the open Court on
this the 2nd day of July 2022)
(A.V.PATIL)
LXIII Addl. City Civil and Sessions
Judge (CCHн64), Bengaluru City.