1
Crl.Misc.556/2023
KABC010017402023
IN THE COURT OF THE LXVIII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND
SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY (CCH-69)
Dated this the 14 th day of February 2023
:PRESENT:
Sri.Sabappa, B.Com., LLB (Spl.)
LXVIII Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru City.
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.556/2023
PETITIONER :
K.P. Shankar,
S/o Putteshaiah,
Aged about 40 years,
R/at No.103, Sompura,
Holavanahalli,
Koratagere Taluk – 572129.
(By Sri. Arun Kumar. Y.H, Adv.,)
V/s
RESPONDENT
:
State by;
Rajgopal Nagar Police Station,
Bengaluru.

(Represented by Public Prosecutor)
2
Crl.Misc.556/2023
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 connection with Cr.No.10/2023
registered by the Rajgopalnagar Police, for the offences punishable
under Secs.420, 328 of I.P.C and Secs.3, 6(A) and 7 of
Essential Commodities Act.

2.

The brief facts of the case of the petitioner is that, the
respondent police registered case against the petitioner in
Cr.No.10/2023 for the offences punishable under Secs.420, 328 of
I.P.C and Secs.3, 6(A) and 7 of Essential Commodities Act, on the
basis of the complaint filed by one T. Srinivasa, Food Inspector,
Bangalore North Taluk. It is alleged that, on 13.01.2023 at about
9.00 a.m the complainant received a credible information through
his informant that at Varalakshmi Industries, situated at No.60,
Srigandakaval, Hegganahalli, Peenya 2nd Stage, Bangalore, the
public distribution Ragi was stored and polishing illegally.
Accordingly, the complainant along with 2 witnesses and food
Shirestedars Srinivasa, Mahanta Gowda, Girish and Ramudas
visited the place and opened the godown. On Sri.Basavaraju was
present and owner was not there at the spot. Complainant called
the owner. He informed that he was in Ballari. Complainant asked
3
Crl.Misc.556/2023
the documents with Basavaraju. But he failed to give proper
documents and he gave some vouchers with regard to sale and
purchase. But he failed to give details with regard to stock. It was
not tallying with the available stock in the godown and with the
furnished documents by Basavaraju. At the time of investigation the
complainant found that there was illegal storage of Ragi which
amounts to cheating to the Government and public. The said ragi
was supposed to be distributed under the public distribution
scheme. But the mill owner i.e., the petitioner was illegally selling
the same in the black market. Since there were no documents with
regard to the stock the complainant considered the stock in the
godwon as illegally stroed Ragi. The complainant seized 460
quintals of Rai, which is valued Rs.12,40,200/-. The petitioner failed
to provide the documents with respect to the stock and he is doing
his business for his illegal gains and failed to appear at the time of
investigation. Hence, complainant lodged complaint against the
petitioner before the respondent police. Hence, apprehending his
arrest by the respondent police the petitioner has filed this
anticipatory bail petition.
3.

The grounds urged by the petitioner are as under.

The petitioner submitted that, he is running a Ragi mill in he
name
and
style
of
Sri
Varalakshi
Industries
at
No.60,
Srigandakaval, Hegganahalli, Peenya 2nd Stage, Bangalore. The
petitioner has obtained licence from APMC. The activities of the Mill
carried by the petitioner by getting necessary permissions from the
4
Crl.Misc.556/2023
concerned authorities and to carry his business as per the orders
and directions issued by the competent authorities from time to
time. There is no restriction to the Ragi Mill owner to purchase Ragi
from agriculturist and dealer, for which he has to make payments
for the purchased ragi to the respective dealers or farmer. The
petitioner was in Ballari at the time of investigation when
complainant called the petitioner from his godown. Since petitioner
was not present at the time of investigation, he was not in a position
to demonstrate and give proper details to the Food Inspector. The
complainant instead of giving notice and called for explanation
about stock available in the godown, instead of doing so, the
complainant directly went and registered a crime is totally illegal.
The
petitioner
purchased
the
Ragi
from
other
local
vendors/agriculturist. The petitioner has transferred the amount to
their respective agriculturist and the payments done through bank
transfer to their respective vendors and agriculturists. The opening
stock as on 01.11.2022 was 475 quintals in the godown, for which
bills are also available for 561 quintals purchased during the month
of October 2022. No prima facie case made out against this
petitioner. He is a permanent resident of Bangalore having deep
roots in the society. He hails from respectable family. He is ready to
abide by any conditions may be imposed by this Court. He is ready
to furnish surety to the satisfaction of the Court. Hence, sought for
grant of anticipatory bail.
4. The learned Public Prosecutor has filed objections to
5
Crl.Misc.556/2023
the bail petition along with the report of the P.S.I, Rajagopalanagar
Police Station. In the objections the learned Public Prosecutor has
narrated the facts as stated in the F.I.R. The complainant has
seized the bill book No.44 and 45 in the presence of panchas. The
I.O is yet to collect documents. If the petitioner is granted bail, there
is every chance that he may abscond and not co-operate with the
investigation and may tamper the evidence. Therefore, the P.P has
sought for rejection of bail.
5.
6.

Heard both sides. Perused the materials on record.
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?

7.

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: I have gone through the bail petition and
objection statement. It is noticed that, the respondent police
registered the case against the petitioner in Cr.No.10/2023 for the
offences punishable U/Secs.420, 328 of I.P.C and Secs.3, 6(A)
6
Crl.Misc.556/2023
and 7 of Essential Commodities Act. One T.Srinivasa had lodged
the complaint before the police. The petitioner has illegally stored
Ragi in his godown illegally. Thereby, he has committed the alleged
offence. On perusal of the complaint, FIR and other documents, it is
noticed that, the petitioner had obtained license from the
Government. The petitioner is a resident of Holavanahalli,
Koratagere Taluk. It is further noticed that the petitioner’s counsel
filed memo along with records maintained by the petitioner for
purchase and sale the articles to other persons. The prosecution
contended that, in case petitioner is enlarged on bail, he will try to
abscond and tamper the prosecution witnesses. Petitioner is not
having any regards to the law and he has cheated to the
Government.
9. In this sort of allegation and counter allegation made by
the parties, I would like to mention that the alleged offences are
triable by the Magistrate Court. The alleged offences are not
punishable with death or imprisonment for life. The materials placed
by the petitioner reveals that, he is a license holder which is issued
by the Government. The case of the prosecution is that the
petitioner had illegally stored the goods which was required to be
distributed to the needed people. Thereby, the petitioner has
committed the offences. In order to ascertain the same, it requires
trial. At this stage, it is not possible to hold that the petitioner has
committed the offence as contended by the prosecution. Moreover,
the respondent police has already conducted the spot panchanama
7
Crl.Misc.556/2023
and recovered the articles. At this juncture, I would like to mention
that the petitioner being the resident of Koratagere Taluk, Tumkur
District, he is having moveable and immovable properties. He is a
registered license holder. Thereby, this Court come to the
conclusion that, at this stage the petitioner has made out grounds to
enlarge him on bail.
10. 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. Moreover, the prosecution contended that in case petitioner
is enlarged on bail, he may abscond, threaten the prosecution
witnesses and hamper the evidence. 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. At this juncture, on perusal of
entire records, this Court feels that the petitioner has made out
sufficient grounds to enlarge them on bail. Hence I answer above
point No.1 in the Affirmative.

8
11.

POINT NO.2:
Crl.Misc.556/2023
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
Cr.No.10/2023
is
in
of
ordered
the
to
event
Rajagopal
be
of
released
his
Nagar
on
arrest
P.S.,
in
on
executing his personal bond for Rs.1,00,000/- with two
sureties for the like sum on the following conditions.
1. The petitioner shall appear before the IO
within 15 days from the date of this order and cooperate for investigation.
2. The petitioner shall not tamper with the
Prosecution witnesses either directly or indirectly in
any manner.
3. He shall co-operate for investigation by the
concerned police and 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.

9
Crl.Misc.556/2023
5. He shall not indulge in any kind of offence.
6. He shall not leave the jurisdiction of the court
without prior permission.
7. He shall mark the attendance in the
respondent P.S between 10.00 a.m to 6.00 p.m once
in 15 days till filing of the charge sheet.
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 14 th day of February, 2023)
(Sabappa)
LXVIII Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru City.

10
Crl.Misc.556/2023
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.10/2023 of Rajagopal Nagar
P.S., on executing his personal bond for
Rs.1,00,000/- with two sureties for the like
sum on the following conditions.
1. The petitioner shall appear before
the IO within 15 days from the date of this
order and co-operate for investigation.
2. The petitioner shall not tamper with
the Prosecution witnesses either directly or
indirectly in any manner.
3.
He
shall
co-operate
for
investigation by the concerned police and
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.

11
Crl.Misc.556/2023
6. He shall not leave the jurisdiction of
the court without prior permission.
7. He shall mark the attendance in the
respondent P.S between 10.00 a.m to 6.00
p.m once in 15 days till filing of the charge
sheet.
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.556/2023