KABC010287612023
IN THE COURT OF THE LII ADDL. CITY CIVIL &
SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE (CCH-53)
Dated this the 9th day of November, 2023
PRESENT
Sri.B.G.Pramoda, B.A.L., LL.B.,
LII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bangalore.
Crl.Misc.No. 10548 /2023
Petitioner
Mantelingachari
Aged about 68 years,
S/o Late Sri.Chandrachari,
R/at No.122, Policy Layout
II Stage, SVP Nagar, Alanahalli
Post, Mysuru – 570028.
(Accused No.48)
(By Sri.Poornachandra B. Pattar, Advocate)
-V/S-
Respondent :
State of Karnataka by
Halasurugate police station,
Bangalore.
(Represented
Prosecutor)
by
learned
Public
2
Crl.Misc.No.10548/2023
ORDER
This petition is filed by the petitioner u/Sec.438 of Cr.P.C.,
praying to grant anticipatory bail to him in the event of his
arrest in Crime No.274/2023 of Halasurugate police station for
the offences punishable u/Sec.409, 419, 420, 465, 468, 472
r/w Sec.34 of IPC, pending on the file of learned 3 rd ACMM
Court, Bengaluru.
2.

It is stated in the petition that the respondent
police have registered a case in Cr.No.274/2023 against the
petitioner and others alleging the offences punishable
/Sec.409, 419, 420, 465, 468, 472 r/w Sec.34 of IPC, on the
basis of compliant given by Raghuveer B.S. It is further stated
in the petition that the petitioner is innocent and he has not
committed the alleged offences. The respondent police have
falsely implicated the petitioner in the aforesaid crime number.
He is permanent resident of address mentioned in the cause
title. The respondent police are making hectic efforts to arrest
the petitioner. There is reasonable apprehension of arrest of
the petitioner. The petitioner is law abiding citizen and he do
not have any criminal antecedents. The petitioner is ready to
abide by any terms and conditions imposed by this court for
his enlargement on bail and he is ready to co-operate with the
investigating agency and he is ready to furnish suitable surety
3
Crl.Misc.No.10548/2023
for his appearance before the court. Hence, the petitioner has
prayed to allow the petition.
3.

The learned Public Prosecutor has filed objections
to the bail application filed by the petitioner along with I.O.
report by opposing the grant of bail to the petitioner by
contending that the offences alleged to have been committed
by the petitioner are grave in nature and against to the society.
It is further stated in the objection that the petitioner along with
other accused have caused loss of more than Rs.2,18,00,000/amount
by
releasing
the
amount
sanctioned
by
the
government to the organizations which are not in existence by
forging the signature and seal of releasing authority. It is
further stated in the objection that the case is still at the
investigation stage. If the petitioner is enlarged on bail, he may
commit the offences of similar nature in future. The petitioner
will abscond and he may not appear before Investigating
Officer and before the court. It is further stated in the objection
that if the petitioner is enlarged on bail he may try to destroy
the evidence and he may threaten the prosecution witnesses.
Hence, the Learned Public Prosecutor has prayed to reject the
petition filed by the petitioner.

4
Crl.Misc.No.10548/2023
4. Heard the arguments of Learned Public Prosecutor and
Learned counsel for the petitioner. Perused the petition,
objection and other materials on record.
5. Having done so, the following points will arise for my
consideration:
(1) Whether the bail petition filed by the
petitioner u/s.438 of Cr.P.C., is deserves
to be allowed?
(2) What order?
6. My findings on the above points are as under:
(1) Point No.1
..

In the Affirmative
(2) Point No.2
..

As per final order
for the following:
REASONS
7. Point No.1:- The respondent police have registered
case in Crime No.274/2023 of Halasurugate police station
against one Anand and 77 other accused by alleging the
offences punishable u/Sec.409, 419, 420, 465, 468, 472 r/w
Sec.34 of IPC on the basis of the information given by
Raghuveer B.S., DPI. The petitioner has produced the certified
copy of FIR, Complaint and other documents. The petitioner is
shown as accused No.48 in the FIR.

5
Crl.Misc.No.10548/2023
8.

It is further alleged in the FIR that the Central
Government
of
India
has
brought
into
effect
the
implementation of IEDSS (Inclusive Education for Disabled at
Secondary Stage) scheme in State of Karnataka for four years
from 2009-2010 to 2012-2013. The central government has
released amount of Rs.18,39,60,607/- during 2014 regarding
the said scheme for the year 2009-2010 to 2011-2012. The
accused No.1 Anand, the Director, Commissioner Office,
accused
No.2
Director
(Minority),
Commission
office
Bengaluru, who were working during 2014 have released the
amount to 97 institutions. During 2015 audit was done. During
the audit report, objection was raised stating that the amount
released under IEDSS scheme was not distributed in
accordance with the rules and sum of Rs.2,18,33,695/- has
been released additionally to some self declared associations.
It is further stated in the audit objection that the amount was
not released through proper channel and it was released
directly to the associations which are not at all in existence by
forging the seal and signature of the releasing authority.
Hence, it is alleged in the complaint that the present petitioner
and other accused have committed the offence of cheating and
other offences.

6
Crl.Misc.No.10548/2023
9.

The offences alleged against the petitioner are
non-bailable in nature. Since FIR is registered against the
petitioner by alleging the commission of non-bailable offence,
the petitioner has filed the present petition under the
apprehension of his arrest. It is the allegation of the petitioner
that in view of registering the FIR against the petitioner, the
respondent police are making hectic efforts to arrest the
petitioner. The petitioner has contended that he is innocent and
he has not committed the alleged offences and his name has
been falsely implicated in the FIR. The investigation of the
allegations made in the complaint is mainly depending upon
the documentary evidence. Custodial interrogation of the
petitioner is not required for further investigation of the case.
As per the complaint, the fact of alleged misappropriation of
funds came to the knowledge of the concerned authority
during 2015 itself when the audit was done. But no action was
taken against the delinquent officials at the point of time. As it
is rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner,
there is delay of many years in lodging the complaint.
10.

The offences alleged against the petitioner are not
exclusively punishable with death or imprisonment for life. The
alleged offences are triable by learned magistrate. The name
of the petitioner is mentioned in the complaint only on the
ground that the petitioner was working at the relevant time of
7
Crl.Misc.No.10548/2023
release of the amount to the beneficiaries. Whether the
petitioner is involved in the commission of offence of release of
the government funds to the association which are not in
existence or not and whether he has released excess amount
or not and whether the petitioner has forged the signature and
seal of releasing authority or not and whether the petitioner
has committed the offence of cheating, criminal breach of trust,
forgery etc. or not has to be adjudicated only after full-fledged
trial. If the petitioner is arrested by the respondent police
without holding proper enquiry and without following the
guidelines of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Arnesh
Kumar’s case, the petitioner would be put to unnecessary
hardship and humiliation.
11.

Further, the petitioner is ready to abide by any
terms and conditions imposed by the court for his enlargement
on bail. He is also ready to furnish surety to the satisfaction of
the court for his appearance before the Investigating Officer.
He is also ready to co-operate with the investigation of the
case. The petitioner is the permanent resident of the address
shown in the cause title. As such, there is no chances of
petitioner absconding or fleeing from justice. The presence of
the petitioner during the course of investigation of the case can
be secured by imposing suitable conditions. The apprehension
of Learned Public Prosecutor regarding absconding of the
8
Crl.Misc.No.10548/2023
petitioner and regarding petitioner threatening the prosecution
witnesses and destroying the evidence can be make good by
imposing suitable terms and conditions. Further other accused
against whom similar offences are alleged were already
granted
anticipatory
Crl.Misc.No.9524/2023,
bail
by
9555/2023,
this
court
9601/2023
in
and
9421/2023, 9739/23, 9740/23, 9741/23, 9972/23, 10446/23
and 10552/23. Under these facts and circumstances, I am of
the opinion that the application filed by the petitioner can be
allowed and petitioner can be granted anticipatory bail by
imposing suitable terms and conditions. Accordingly, I
answer point No.1 in the Affirmative.
12. Point No.2:- In view of my findings on point No.1, I
proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
The petition filed by the petitioner/Accused No.48
u/Sec.438 of Cr.P.C., is hereby allowed.
The
respondent
police
shall
release
the
petitioner/Accused No.48 on bail in the event of his arrest in
Crime No.274/2023 of Halasurugate police station for the
offences punishable u/Sec.409, 419, 420, 465, 468, 472 r/w
Sec.34 of IPC, pending on the file of learned 3 rd ACMM court,
Bangalore, on petitioner executing personal bond for a sum of
Rs.1,00,000/- with one surety for likesum to the satisfaction of
the Learned Magistrate on the following further conditions:-
9
Crl.Misc.No.10548/2023
CONDITIONS
(1) The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating
Officer within two weeks from the date of this order and
he shall furnish all necessary information and documents
to the Investigating Officer.
(2) The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating
Officer as and when called for and he shall co-operate
with investigation of the case.
(3) The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any
inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted
with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from
disclosing such facts to the court or any police officer or
any hamper with the evidence.
(4) The petitioner shall not try to destroy evidence.
(5) The petitioner shall not leave India without prior permission
of the concerned jurisdictional magistrate.
(6) The petitioner shall not commit any offence of similar or
any other offence in future.
(7) Violation of any of the aforesaid terms and conditions
would entitle for cancellation of bail of the petitioner.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, directly on computer,
corrected and then pronounced by me in the open court
on this the 9th day of November, 2023).
PRAMODA
BG
Digitally signed by
PRAMODA B G
Date: 2023.11.09
16:26:23 +0530
(B.G. Pramoda)
LII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru.