KABC010088772024
IN THE COURT OF THE LI ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS
JUDGE AT BENGALURU CITY. (CCH 52)
Dated this the 15th day of April 2024
:PRESENT:
Sri. Yashawanth Kumar, B.A.(Law), LL.B,
LI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru City.

Crl. Misc. No. 3145/2024
Petitioners:
1. Sri. Naveen Kumar B.
S/o. Mr. D.M. Byrappa.
Aged about 42 years,
R/at. No. 189, 5th Main road,
Vidya Nagar, Bengaluru-57. .
2. Sri. M.S. Nandish,
S/o. Mr. N. Shivalinge gowda,
Aged about 44 years,
R/at. No.1013, 18th A Main,
66th Cross, V Block,
Rajajinagar,
Bengaluru-10.
3. Smt. Gayathridevi,
W/o. Mr. Siddegowda,
Aged about 51 years,
R/at. No.1076,18th A Main,
66th Cross, V Block,
Rajajinagar,
Bengaluru-10.
(By Sri. B. Keshava Murthy, Adv.)

2
Crl.Misc. 3145/2024
//Vs//
Respondent:
The State of Karnataka,
By CID, Crime Investigating
Department, Bengaluru.
(Rep. by Learned Public Prosecutor.
Bengaluru City)
ORDER
The petitioners No.1 to 3 have filed this petition
U/sec. 438 of Cr.P.C., for the grant of anticipatory bail in the
event of their arrest by the respondent police in Crime No.
243/2023 registered by the Wilson Garden Police, now
investigated by CID, for the offences punishable under
Sections 409, 420, 465, 471, 468 R/w. Sec. 120-B of IPC.
2. The petitioners have contended as under;
The informant is the Managing Director of the D.
Devaraj Urs Truck Terminals Ltd., ( A Govt. of Karnataka
Undertaking). When he took charge as Managing Director
on 19.11.2022, he found certain omissions and commissions
in the administration of the company. Due to the same the
company has suffered huge monetary loss. In connection
with the same a case was registered in Crime No. 243/2023
3
Crl.Misc. 3145/2024
of Wilson Garden Police station for the offences punishable
U/secs. 409, 420, 465,468, 471 R/w. sec. 120-B of IPC. Now
the investigation is transferred to CID police. The petitioners
are innocents and they have not committed any offences.
The complaint has been lodged after long lapse of almost
two years. The petitioners have supplied equipments and
carried out work entrusted to them to the satisfaction of the
company. Due to differences between the Chairman and
Managing director of the company, the present complaint
has been lodged. There are differences between the
informant with earlier chairman. The allegations made in the
complaint are baseless. The offences are non-bailable in
nature, it is not punishable with death or life imprisonment.
If the petitioners are arrested by the police, their reputation
will be at stake. The petitioners are permanent residents of
the address given in the cause title. They are ready to offer
surety for their release on bail and abide by the conditions
that may be imposed by the court.
3. The learned public prosecutor appeared for the
respondent and filed his objections and contended that the
4
Crl.Misc. 3145/2024
petition is not maintainable. It is contended that in respect
of the alleged offences, the CID police are conducting
investigation.

Simultaneously
Karnataka
Lokayuktha,
Bengaluru is also conducting inquiry into the same.
DDUTTL, Bengaluru has suffered a loss of Rs. 47.10 crore.
Already the CID police have seized 782 files pertaining to
the illegal work orders and reported the same before the
learned
magistrate.

Primafacie,
it disclose
that
this
petitioners have submitted fake bills to the company and
received money though the work orders have not been
completed. They have submitted false documents regarding
completion of work. It discloses that the petitioners have
caused illegal loss to the company. More than Rs. 47 crore
which is a huge public money is involved in the case. The
offence is serious in nature. The petitioner No.1 is not cooperating in the investigation of the case, though he has
been asked to appear for investigation. Petitioner No.2 has
sold his S.S. Enterprises to others and petitioner No.3 is also
absconding. The presence of these petitioners is very much
necessary for completion of investigation.

5
Crl.Misc. 3145/2024
4. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the
petitioners and learned Public Prosecutor for respondent.
5. The points that arise for my consideration is :
1. Whether the petitioners No.1 to 3 are
entitled for anticipatory bail as prayed by
them?
2. What Order?
6. My finding on the above points are as under:
Point No.1: In the Affirmative.
Point No.2: As per final order
for the following;
REASONS
7. Point No.1:-
The informant C.N. Shiva Prakash,
Managing Director of DDUTTL, Bengaluru lodged a
complaint on 23.9.2023
about causing loss of Rs. 47.10
crore to the company and on the basis of the same a case
was registered in Cr. No. 243/2023 by Wilson Garden police
station for the offences punishable U/sec.s. 409, 420, 465,
471, 468 R/w. Sec. 120-B of IPC. Subsequently, the
investigation has been transferred to CID, Bengaluru.
8. The names of these petitioners are not found in the
6
Crl.Misc. 3145/2024
FIR or in the complaint. In the objections the learned public
prosecutor has stated that there are prima-facie materials
against these petitioners for having committed the alleged
offences. It is stated that the petitioners got released
amount from informant company by producing fake bills.
The informant company is a Govt. of Karnataka undertaking
and the petitioners have illegally caused loss to the
informant company. The petitioners have stated that they
are doing business in the name of Venisha Enterprises, S.S.
Enterprises and Mayur Advertising respectively. It is stated
by them that they have supplied equipments and carried out
work entrusted to them to the satisfaction of the company.
However, it is alleged that huge sum of Rs. 47.10 crore has
been misappropriated. It is stated that in spite of issuing of
Sec. 41-A Cr.P.C. notices to petitioners, they have not
appeared before the investigating officer. Considering the
facts and circumstances, I am of the
opinion that the
petitioners are required for the investigation, however their
custodial interrogation is not required. They are ready to
abide by the conditions that may be imposed by the court.

7
Crl.Misc. 3145/2024
The petitioners are running private firms. They are residents
of the address given in the cause-title. It is stated that they
have got deep roots in the society. Under the circumstances,
likelihood of their fleeing from justice is less. They under
take to co-operate in the investigation of the case. The
offences
alleged
against
these
petitioners
are
not
punishable with death or life imprisonment. They are triable
by a Magistrate. Considering the above circumstances, I am
of the opinion that if the petitioners are granted
anticipatory bail by imposing certain conditions, it would
suffice to meet the ends of justice. Accordingly, I answer
the point raised above in the Affirmative.
9. Point No. 2: In view of my above discussion, I
proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
The bail petition filed by the petitioners No.1
to 3 U/Sec. 438 of Cr.P.C. is hereby allowed.
The petitioners No.1 to 3 shall be released on
bail in the event of their arrest in Crime No.
243/2023 registered by the Wilson garden police,
8
Crl.Misc. 3145/2024
now investigating by CID,
for the offences
punishable under Sections 409, 420, 465, 471, 468
R/w. Sec. 120-B of IPC on following conditions:
1. The petitioners No.1 to 3 shall execute
personal bond for a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/( Rupees One lakh) only with one surety for
like sum to the satisfaction of the I.O.
2. The petitioners No.1 to 3 shall appear
before the I.O. within 15 days from the
date of this order.
3. They shall co-operate in the investigation
of the case and they shall appear before
the I.O. as and when required by the I.O.
4. They shall not tamper with prosecution
witnesses and hamper the investigation.
5. They shall not leave India without prior
permission of the jurisdictional magistrate.
6. They shall furnish their photo identity card
for residential proof or any change of
address to the I.O. during the period of
investigation.
(Dictated to the stenographer grade-I, transcribed and computerised by her
and after corrections, printout taken and then pronounced in the Open Court
and signed by me, on this the 15th day of April 2024)
(Yashawanth Kumar)
LI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru City
9
Crl.Misc. 3145/2024