KABC010161342022
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL CITY CIVIL AND
SESSIONS JUDGE, AT BENGALURU
Dated this the 28th day of June, 2022
PRESENT:
Sri C.M. Joshi,
B.Sc. L.L.M.
Principal City Civil and Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru.
Crl.Misc.No.6014/2022
Petitioner
:
Manjunath T.K.
S/o late Kumar Acharya,
Aged about 46 years,
R/at No.38, 1st Main Road,
2nd Cross, Thotada guddada halli,
Bagalgunte, Bengaluru – 89.
[By Sri Harsih Prabhu S.,Adv.,]
Vs.

Respondent
:
The State of Karnataka
Rajajinagar Police Station
Bengaluru.
[Rep. by Public Prosecutor]
ORDER
T
his petition is filed under Section 439 of Code of
Criminal Procedure by the petitioner who is in judicial
custody for regular bail Crime No.69/2022 of
Rajajinagar
Police Station, which is registered for the offences punishable
Crl.Misc.6014/2022
2
under Section 420 and 468 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and
Section 21 of Banning of Unregulated Deposit Schemes Act,
2019.

The Brief facts of the case are as below :
2.

Rajajinagar Police have registered a case on the basis of
complaint lodged by Pushpak Kumar S/o Venkateswarlu. It is
stated in the complaint that accused No.1 to 4 were running a
Institution called
Eagle Tree Developers and Builders
and
they were inducing the people that they would sell house/site
to the needy. The complainant was the victim to such
advertisement and he met the accused No.1 and initially the
site No.108 was shown that it is for sale at New Garden City
Layout and an advance amount of Rs.10,000/- was paid.
Later, the accused showed the site No.51 which was alloted to
one Sangeetha Bhat and received an amount of Rs.90,000/from
the
complainant
and
successively
a
sum
of
Rs.3,00,000/- was paid by the complainant to the accused
either by the accused or to the said Sangeetha Bhat and her
sons.

Later, the accused absconded and they had locked
Crl.Misc.6014/2022
3
their office of Eagle Tree Developers and Builders and
therefore, the complainant filed a complaint to the police
which was registered for the above crime number and since it
was mentioned that about 30 people were also cheated, the
provisions of BUDs Act was invoked by the Investigating
Officer.

of
Police Station, which is registered for the offence
punishable under Sections of Indian Penal Code, 1860.
During investigation, petitioner was arrested by the
police and he was remanded to judicial custody.
Now, the petitioner has approached this court for
regular bail contending that he is innocent and he has not
committed any of the offences as alleged in the complaint. It
is stated that he is also victim of circumstances of the case
and he is a developer having an office at Rajajinagar.

It is
further stated that the complainant has approached the
petitioner and he was shown sites which were available for
sale, thereafter since the complainant did not prefer to go
ahead with the sale transaction, the petitioner had promised
to refund him his amount paid, the advance amount was
transferred to Sangeetha Bhat.

It is contended that he is not
Crl.Misc.6014/2022
4
responsible for any of the transactions as alleged in the
complaint and he has not cheated any people. It is contended
that he is not responsible for any of the transactions as
alleged in the complaint and he has not cheated any people. It
is contended that the petitioner hails from respectable family
and he is ready and willing to abide by the conditions that
may be imposed by the court and undertake that he will not
tamper prosecution witnesses, and will not cause any harm
for investigation or trial. Therefore, the petitioner has sought
for grant of regular bail.

3.

On issuance of notice, learned Public Prosecutor
appeared and filed objections to the petition contending that
there is prima facie case against the petitioner. It is contended
that the petitioner/accused No.1 was running Eagle Tree
Developers and Builders which a Real Estate Agency and had
received money from the public and had invested the amount
else where.

Therefore, the other investments made by the
accused has to be ascertained and the source of income is out
of the crime proceeds involved in this case. The involvement
Crl.Misc.6014/2022
5
of petitioner in transacting with the other accused involved in
this case is required to be traced on interrogation. It is further
contended that there is prima facie case against the petitioner
and investigation is in progress. There is every possibility that
petitioner may cause harm for the investigation and tamper
the prosecution witnesses. Therefore, the petition is liable to
be rejected.
4.

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the entire records.

5.

Only point that arises for my consideration is :
“Whether the petitioner is entitled for
regular bail? If so, on what conditions?

6.

My answer to the above point is in the negative for the
following:
REASONS
7.

It is the case of the prosecution that accused No.1 to 4
were running a Institution called Eagle Tree Developers and
Builders and they were inducing the people that they would
sell house/site to the needy. The complainant was the victim
Crl.Misc.6014/2022
6
to such advertisement and he met the accused No.1 and
initially the site No.108 was shown that it is for sale at New
Garden City Layout and an advance amount of Rs.10,000/was paid.

Later, the accused showed the site No.51 which
was alloted to one Sangeetha Bhat and received an amount of
Rs.90,000/- from the complainant and successively a sum of
Rs.3,00,000/- was paid by the complainant to the accused
either by the accused or to the said Sangeetha Bhat and her
sons.

Later, the accused absconded and they had locked
their office of Eagle Tree Developers and Builders and
therefore, the complainant filed a complaint to the police
which was registered for the above crime number and since
was mentioned that about 30 people were also cheated the
provisions of BUDs Act was invoked by the Investigating
Officer.

8.

It is relevant to note that the perusal of the complaint
mentions that the petitioner and accused No.4 had contacted
the complainant that the agreement of site No.51 and he
found that the signature of Shivakumar was forged one and
Crl.Misc.6014/2022
7
therefore he demanded refund of the money.
was
the
petitioner/accused
No.1
who
Thereafter, it
contacted
the
complainant and promised to provide the agreement signed
by the said Sangeetha Bhat. Again he had believed accused
No.1 and paid cheque for Rs.1,00,000/- in the name of
Sangeetha Bhat and Rs.1,00,000/- was transferred in the the
name of Shivakumar who is the son of Sangeetha Bhat
through G.Pay. He states that it was at the instance of the
accused No.4 and accused no.1 Manjunath. Later he had
showed the documents to LIC Housing and came to know
that the documents were fake and therefore, he demanded
the money back, but the accused did not pay the amount and
as such, it was constrained to file the complaint. It is also
mention that similar F.I.R. was registered at Nelamangala
Rural P.S. and when they did not take any action, a
complaint was filed before the Rajajinagar P.S.

9.

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submit
that the petitioner is the Real Estate Agent and he only had
arranged for the site to be finalized by the complainant and
Crl.Misc.6014/2022
8
he had nothing to do with the sale agreement, promises
arrangements etc.

In furtherance of such
Real Estate
Agency, he had received asum of Rs.90,000/- and the
remaining amount was directly paid to the son of the site
owner
i.e..

documents
Sangeetha
do
not
Bhat
show
and
therefore,
prima-facie
case
the
seized
against
the
petitioner, as such, he may be granted bail.
10.

Per contra, the learned Public Prosecutor contends that
the petitioner and his companions showed the
forged
documents alleged to have been signed by Sangeetha Bhat
and therefore, there is a prima-facie case to show that forgery
had been committed.

Moreover, such similar dealings were
also made with many others and therefore, the provisions of
BUDS Act are applicable.
11.

The perusal of the
complaint discloses that the
petitioner and two others had met the complainant and
initially they had showed site No.108 and had received
Rs.10,000/- as advance, later, they showed the site No.51 of
Sangeetha Bhat. If they had shown site No.108, the
Crl.Misc.6014/2022
9
contention of the petitioner that he was
Real Estate Agent
does not hold good. It is relevant to note that if the petitioner
was only acting as Real Estate Agent, the complainant being
provided with forged agreement which was not
signed by
Sangeetha Bhat would not be arisen. Therefore, it is evident
that the contention of the petitioner does not have a logical
reasoning. It is relevant to note that records reveal that there
are more than 30 people who had been induced to pay the
amount and the copies of agreements were found in
possession of the accused. Under these circumstances, the
contention of the petitioner that he was only a Real Estate
Agent and he had acted bonafide cannot be accepted. When
the investigation is still in progress, it would not be proper to
grant the bail to the petitioner herein. Hence, I am unable to
accept the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner.
Moreover, there is every possibility that the petitioner may
tamper the prosecution witnesses who are eager to recover
back their money and such act would result in a situation of
survival of fittest and interest of hapless depositors would be
Crl.Misc.6014/2022
10
in jeopardy. Hence, point raised above is answered in the
negative and following order is passed.
ORDER
The bail petition filed by the petitioner under
Section 439 of Cr.P.C. is hereby dismissed..
(Dictated to the Judgment Writer, transcribed by her
transcription corrected by me and then pronounced in the
open Court on this 28th day of June, 2022.)

(C.M.JOSHI)
Principal City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru.