IN THE COURT OF LXXI ADDL. CITY CIVIL &
SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY (CCH-72)
DATED THIS THE 25 th DAY OF JANUARY, 2023
PRESENT:
Smt. K.S.JYOTHISHREE, B.Com, L.L.B.
LXXI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru.
CRL.MISC.No.545/2023
Petitioners 1. Jyothi Sampath Ravi.M
S/o Michel,
Aged about 58 years,
2. Sri Michel Disouza J S,
S/o Jyothi S Ravi.M,
Aged about 30 years,
Both are R/at No.45/1,
3rd Cross, Kanakadasa
Layout, Lingarajapuram,
Bengaluru-560084
(By Sri. G Manjunath
Reddy, Adv.)
AND
Respondent State of Karnataka
Banaswadi P S,
Bangalore.
(By the learned Public
Prosecutor)
2
Crl.Misc.No.545/2023
ORDER ON BAIL APPLICATION FILED U/S.438
OF Cr.P.C.
The bail application is filed by the petitioners
under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. praying to grant an order
of anticipatory bail in the event of their arrest in
Crime No.14/2023 for the offences punishable U/s.
354, 448 r/w 34 of IPC.
2. The facts are as under:
The complainant is the owner of House No.45,
3rd cross, Kanakadasa Layout, Lingarajapuram. She
has let out the said house to accused No.1. After the
death of complainant’s husband, the accused No.1
had stopped the payment of rent and also failed to
vacate the premises. The court has ordered the
accused No.1 to vacate the said property within 3
months and to pay Rs.60,500/- to the complainant.
Thereafter, the accused No.1 locked the said house,
failed to pay the amount and his whereabouts was not
known. On 31.12.2022, the complainant broke open
3
Crl.Misc.No.545/2023
the lock, took the house to her possession. On
01.01.2023 at about 4.00p.m, the accused No.1
trespassed the said house and in illegal possession.
The complainant and her daughter-in-law questioned
the same. At that time, accused No.1 and other
accused persons with common intention, started
quarrel with complainant and attempted to outrage
her modesty.
3. Grounds for bail:
1. The petitioners are innocents.
2. The petitioners are co-owners of Site No.45,
Lingarajapuram and they have been residing
since 27 years.
3. The complainant and her family members
created
Rent
Agreement,
filed
HRC
No.10005/2022 and got Exparte Judgment.
4. The complainant illegally tried to vacate the
premises. The petitioners came to know the
same and filed Misc.No.15001/2023.
5. The petitioners never trespassed the said
house and quarreled with the complainant.
She has lodged false case.
6. They are ready to abide by the conditions to
be imposed by the court.

4
Crl.Misc.No.545/2023
With these contentions, they have requested to
allow the application.
4. The learned Public Prosecutor has filed the
objections and re-iterated the complaint averments.
There are prima facie materials against the petitioners
to reject the bail. If the bail application is allowed, the
petitioners may put threat to the complainant. Hence,
prayed for dismissal of the application.
5. Heard.
6. Now the points that arise for my consideration
are:
1. Whether the petitioners have made
out sufficient grounds to grant
anticipatory bail ?
2. What order?
7.

My
findings
on
the
above
points
are
hereunder:
Point No.1:
Point No.2:
In the affirmative
As per final order,
for the following:
5
Crl.Misc.No.545/2023
R EAS O N S
8. Point No.1:
It appears that, the alleged
dispute is civil in nature. The complainant and the
petitioners are claiming their alleged right over the
disputed property. According to the complainant, the
accused No.1 was tenant and he illegally trespassed
the suit property after the Judgment and Decree in
HRC
No.10005/2022.

On
the
other
hand,
the
petitioners have submitted that, they are in the
possession in the said property since 27 years.
9. It appears that I.O. has commenced the
investigation,
conducted
mahazar,
recorded
the
statement of witnesses and completed the major part
of the investigation. The involvement of petitioners is
yet to be proved. The alleged offences are not
punishable with death or imprisonment for life. They
are to be tried before learned Magistrate. Hence, there
is absolutely no reason to deny benefit of anticipatory
6
Crl.Misc.No.545/2023
bail to the petitioners at this stage. Consequently, the
point No.1 is answered in the affirmative.
10. Point No.2: Hence, I proceed to pass the
following:
ORD ER
The bail application filed by the
petitioners under Section 438 of Cr.P.C.
is hereby allowed.
The respondent police is hereby
directed to release the petitioners in the
event of their arrest in Crime
No.14/2023 for the offences punishable
U/s. 354, 448 r/w 34 of IPC, subject to
the following conditions:
1. The
petitioners
shall
execute
personal bond for Rs.50,000/- each
with like sum surety.
2. The petitioners shall not threaten
the
complainant
and
other
witnesses.
(Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer directly on the computer, corrected by me and
then pronounced in open Court on this the 25th day of January, 2023)
(K.S.JYOTHISHREE)
LXXI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge
Bengaluru.