KABC010091132024
IN THE COURT OF THE LXII ADDL.CITY CIVIL &
SESSIONS JUDGE BENGALURU CITY [CCH.63]
Dated: This the 8 th day of April 2024
Present: Sri. A. EARANNA, M.Com., L.L.M.,
LXII Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru City.
Crl.Misc.No. 3227/2024
Petitioner:
Sri. Raghu C.S.,
Aged about 22 years
S/o Sri. Siddanayaka
Chikkakavalande Grama
Doddakavalande Hobli,
Nanjangud Taluk,
Mysore District
Karnataka-571312
(By Sri. Shashidhar, Advocate).
Vs.

Respondent:
State by Rajarajeshwari nagar
Police station,
Bengaluru.
(Rep. by Public Prosecutor).
OR D E R
The petition is filed by the petitioner/accused under
Section 438 of Cr.P.C for an order of anticipatory bail.

2
2.

Crl.Misc.No. 3227/2024
On the strength of complaint the Rajarajeshwari
nagar Police have registered the case in Crime No.500/2023
for the offence punishable under Sections 66(C), 66(D) of the
IT Act.
3.

In the bail petition it is contended that the
petitioner is innocent and he has not committed the alleged
offences. The respondent police have falsely implicated the
petitioner in the case on hand on the basis of false complaint
filed by the complainant. The petitioner is undergoing great
hardship and suffering mental trauma due to the possibility of
arrest by the respondent police since they are visiting his
house. The petitioner is the permanent resident of his address
shown in the cause title of the petition. The petitioner is
having deep roots in the society. The petitioner is ready to
abide by any conditions that may be imposed by the court and
he is ready to co-operate with the I.O. during investigation
and he is ready to furnish surety to ensure his regular
attendance before the concerned Court. Inter alia, on these
grounds, the petitioner prays to allow the bail petition.
4. The learned Public Prosecutor filed objections
contending that the police have registered the case against
the petitioner for the offences punishable
Under Sections
66(C) and 66(D) of IT Act. If the petitioner is released on bail
he may commit similar offences, he will come in the way of
3
Crl.Misc.No. 3227/2024
trial, tampering of witnesses. Therefore, prays to reject the
bail petition.
5. Heard both sides. Perused the record.
6. Following points arise for consideration of this Court:
1.

Whether the petitioner has made out
ground to enlarge him on anticipatory
bail under Section 438 of Cr.P.C.?

2.

What Order?

7.

My findings on the above Points are as follows:
Point No.1 – In the Affirmative
Point No.2-As per Final Order, for the
following:
R E A S ON S
8. Point No.1: Counsel for the petitioner argued that
the petitioner has not committed any offence as alleged by
the respondent police. Alleged offences are not punishable
with life imprisonment or death. Alleged offences are triable
by the Court of Magistrate and the accused is ready to abide
by the conditions imposed by the Court. Therefore he prays
to allow the bail application. Learned Public Prosecutor has
argued that, the case is under investigation. If the petitioner
is released on bail, then there is chances of hamper and
tamper of prosecution witnesses and he will commit similar
4
Crl.Misc.No. 3227/2024
kind of offences cannot be ruled out.

Along with other
grounds, prosecution prays to reject the bail application.
9. On perusal of the records, it reveals that one
Sailakshmi R has lodged the complaint before the police
stating
that,
“Coinswith
company
in
whatsapp
communication was started to Telegram ID without prior
sharing the terms and conditions of the company they are
asking us to pay for credit score, then asked the complainant
to perform 5 tasks post performing all the tasks again asking
an amount to pay an SVIP account transfer my money to my
account. That “PP Trade (Instagram) (Crypto-Zoya), in
instagram communication was started then senior started
communication in whatsapp to get my investment and
commission but post mail confirmation also the team was
asking to pay again and again and still didn’t receive any
amount from their end for cancellation charges also they
keep on asking the money and transferred total an amount of
Rs.10,53,414/-.

Hence
the
complaint.

Based
on
the
complaint, the respondent police have registered the case in
Cr.No.500/2023 for the offences punishable under Section
66(C), 66(D) of I.T. Act.
10. On perusal of the records, it reveals that complaint is
filed against unknown persons. Learned public prosecutor
argued that if he is released on bail, he may not appear or
cooperate for investigation and commit similar kind of
5
Crl.Misc.No. 3227/2024
offence. If the accused appeared before the concerned police
then they may arrest and send him behind bar. Prosecution
papers does not reveals that apart from this case some other
cases
are
registered
against
the
present
petitioner.

Considering the gravity of offence and nature of offence,
court ought to release the petitioner.
11. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Central
Bureau of investigation Vs. V.Vijay Sai Reddy 2013 (7)
SCALE 15 was pleased to express that; “28. While granting
bail, the court has to keep in mind the nature of accusation,
the nature of evidence in support thereof, the severity of the
punishment which conviction will entail, the character of the
accused, circumstances which are peculiar to the accused,
reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the accused
at the trial, reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being
tampered with, the larger interests of the public/ state and
other similar consideration. It has also to be kept in mind
that for the purpose of granting bail, the legislature has used
the words ‘reasonable grounds for believing” instead of “the
evidence” which means the court dealing with the grant of
bail can only satisfy it as to whether there is a genuine case
against the accused and that the prosecution will be able to
produce prima facie evidence in support of the charge. It is
not expected, at this stage, to have the evidence establishing
the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

6
12.

Crl.Misc.No. 3227/2024
By considering the nature of the offence and also
reasons stated in the bail petition this Court come to
conclusion that the petitioner is entitled for bail. On careful
perusal of the records that there is no previous antecedents
against the petitioner. It does not reveals that the petitioner
is a habitual offender. No person can be send to the jail
without having valid reasonable grounds. Before considering
the bail application Court ought to see the previous
antecedents and to threat the prosecution witnesses and also
abscond from the case. However, the alleged offences are not
punishable with imprisonment for life or death sentence. The
apprehension of the prosecution that petitioner may abscond
from the case and may not co-operate with the I.O. shall be
meted out by imposing suitable conditions. By considering all
these aspects, I am of the opinion that the petitioner is
entitled for bail and accordingly, I answer the above Point
No.1 in the Affirmative.
13. Point No.2: In view of my findings on Point No.1, I
proceed to pass the following:
OR D E R
The anticipatory bail petition filed by the
petitioner under Section 438 of Cr.P.C is
hereby allowed.
The respondent police are hereby directed
to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail
7
in
the
event
of
Crl.Misc.No. 3227/2024
his
arrest
in
Crime
No.500/2023 of respondent Police Station for
the offence punishable under Section 66(C)
and 66(D) of Information Technology Act on
execution
of
his
personal
bond
for
Rs.1,00,000/- with one surety for the like
sum on the following conditions:
1.That the petitioner shall appear before
the I.O. within 30 days from the date of this
order and shall co-operate in the matter of
investigation or whenever called by the I.O.
2. That the petitioner shall mark his
attendance once in 30 days preferably on 2 nd
Saturday in between 10.00 a.m. to 5.00 p.m.
before the Jurisdictional Police till filing the
final report.
3. That the petitioner shall not hold any
threat to the complainant and shall not
tamper with any of the prosecution witnesses
directly or indirectly.
4. That the petitioner shall furnish his
residential address proof and that of his
surety.
5. That the petitioner shall not indulge in
similar type of offences in future.

8
Crl.Misc.No. 3227/2024
6. That the petitioner shall appear before
the trial court regularly without fail on receipt
of the summons.
7. That if the petitioner fails to obey any
of the above said conditions, then this bail
order automatically stands canceled.
(To my dictation directly typed by the Stenographer-III on computer, print
out taken thereof is corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in
Open Court on this the 8 th day of April, 2024).

(A. EARANNA),
LXII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru City.