IN THE COURT OF THE LIX ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS
JUDGE, BANGALORE CITY
Dated this the 27th day of June 2022
PRESENT
Sri.Sadananda Nagappa Naik, B.A.L, L.L.B.,
LIX ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE
BANGALORE CITY
CRL. MISC.No. 6017/2022
PETITIONER:
M. Ramesh @ Ramu
S/o M. Srinivas,
Aged about 32 years,
R/at 1-12-22 Ward ,
No.5, Lingasuguru road,
Near Water Tank,
Daddycolony,
Raichur – 584 101.
(Accused No.4)
(By Sri. Manjunatha.V, Advocate)
-Vs-
RESPONDENT:
The State of Karnataka by
Parapana Agrahara Police Station,
Bengaluru.
(By Learned Public Prosecutor)
2
Crl.Misc.No.6017/2022
ORDER
The
petitioner/accused
No.4
in Crime
No.307/2021
of
Parapana Agrahara Police Station, Bangalore, which has been
registered for the offences punishable under sections 34, 420, 406,
409 and 506 of IPC, on the file of 4th ACMM at Bangalore, has filed
this petition under section 438 of Cr.P.C., for grant of anticipatory bail.
2.

The petitioner has contended that, the petitioner was only
a office boy in the company and the allegations of cheating is only
against the petitioner No.1. The dispute is purely civil in nature and
the complainant has remedy before the civil court. The petitioner is
permanent resident of Bengaluru and he comes from an orthodox
family. The alleged offences though non-bailable, it is not punishable
with death.

The petitioner is ready to furnish the surety to the
satisfaction of the court, and ready to abide by any of the conditions
that may be imposed. On these grounds, the petitioner sought for
anticipatory bail.
3.

The prosecution opposed the bail petition on the ground
that there are sufficient materials to show that the petitioner has
committed the alleged offences, which are serious in nature.
Therefore, if bail is granted, there is every chance of absconding,
threatening the prosecution witnesses, fleeing from justice and
3
Crl.Misc.No.6017/2022
destroying the evidence and accordingly, prayed for rejection of the
petition.
4.

Heard arguments of both sides and perused the records.

5.

The only point that arises for my consideration is:
“Whether the petitioner/accused No.4 is
entitled for anticipatory bail under Section 438
of Cr.P.C. ?”
6.

My finding to the above point is in the Affirmative, for
the following:
REASONS
7.

The brief facts of the case is that, the complainant by
name Kovi Damodar Naidu S/o Kovi Chinaba, that a broker by name
Apparao approached him and told him to purchase a land through
M/s Navayuga Properties office situated at No.669, Manjunatha
Arcade, 1st floor, 9th main, sector-7. HSR Layout, Bengaluru-560102.
In the office, he was introduced to Mr.Raviteja (Accused No.2) who
convinced him to make full payment at once in order to get discount
and told him that the property is hot in the market. The complainant
believing accused No.2, gave him 3 cheques at once pertaining to
ICICI bank bearing No. 000133, 000134 and 000135 each
for
Rs.20,00,000/- dated 13-01-2020 for plot bearing No.41, 42,52 and
53 measuring 600 Sq feet each, in total 2400 Sq feet, caved out of
the property bearing Sy.No.4 measuring 3 Acres 36 guntas situated
4
Crl.Misc.No.6017/2022
at Beretana Agrahara village, Begur Hobli, Bengaluru. Thereafter,
Mr. Raviteja (accused No.2) issued a hand written receipt for
Rs.60,00,000/-.

The accused No.2 did not give any registered
document, the complainant got doubt about accused No.2 and
asked him to repay the said amount. Accused No.2 told the
complainant that he has moved out of Navayuga properties and
asked him to ask Navayuga properties owner Mr. Navin (Accused
No.1) and employee Mr. Ramu (accused No.4). The accused never
met the complainant in person and sent him a voice message stating
that he shall return the money and issued him a refund commitment
letter on 18-02-2021, promising to return the said amount of
Rs.60,00,000/-. But till now, they have not made any repayment to
the complainant. The complainant came to know that the amount of
Rs.60,00,000/- has been credited to account under the name of
Gayathri Bai who is the accused No.3.

Therefore, the present
petitioner has been arrayed as accused No.4.
8. The learned counsel for petitioner argued that the petitioner has
been falsely implicated in the above case. He is no way concerned to the
alleged incident.

He has no active role in the alleged crime. False case
has been foisted against the petitioner though he is no way concerned to
the alleged crime. The prosecution has not at all placed any prima facie
materials to connect the petitioner in the present case.

The petitioner
hails from respectable family having deep roots in the society and he is
ready to abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this court in the
5
Crl.Misc.No.6017/2022
event he is enlarged on anticipatory bail.
9.

Per contra, the learned Public Prosecutor argued that the
petitioner is one of the prime accused. At this stage, if the petitioner is
released on bail, there is every chance to abscond from the jurisdiction of
this court and he being very influential person may intimidate the
witnesses and tamper the evidences already collected against him and
therefore, he is not entitled to be released on anticipatory bail. Hence,
prays to dismiss the petition.
10. Considering the present bail petition, the court is normally
required to consider the following aspects;
I) The nature and seriousness of the accusation;
ii) Severity of the offence;
iii) Nature of the evidence collected and the character and behaviour
of the accused;
iv) Chances of the accused No.4 absconding and not being available
during the trial;
v) Possibility of repetition of such crime;
vi) Chances of the accused No.4 to tampering with the evidence and
witnesses and
vii) Larger interest of the people and the State.
11.

From the allegations in the FIR and from the statement of
objections filed by the Public Prosecutor, it can be seen that the
petitioner is arrayed as accused No.4. The offences alleged against
6
Crl.Misc.No.6017/2022
the petitioner though non-bailable but not punishable with death or
imprisonment for life. It is the case of the complainant that accused
No.1 and 2 have cheated the complainant by receiving the amount
of Rs.60,00,000/-. There appears to be main transactions with
complainant and Navayuga properties.

According to the petitioner,
he is having permanent residence and hence he will available for
trial. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of anticipatory
bail. The apprehension of the prosecution could be met by imposing
conditions and no prejudice will be caused to the investigating
agency in case anticipatory bail is granted to the petitioner.
Accordingly, I answer point No.1 in the ‘Affirmative’ and proceed to
pass the following:
ORDER
Petition in Crl.Misc.No.6017/2022 filed by the petitioner under
section 438 Cr.P.C. is hereby allowed.
The Investigating Officer, in the event of causing arrest of the
petitioner in Crime No.307/2022 of respondent police station
registered for the offences punishable U/s 34, 420, 406, 409 and 506
of IPC, filed on 4th Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate,
Bengaluru, shall release the petitioner on bail on his executing a
personal bond in a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- each (Rupees one lakh)
with two solvent sureties for the like sum to the satisfaction of the
Investigating Officer with the following conditions:
7
Crl.Misc.No.6017/2022
1. The Petitioner shall mark his attendance
respondent police station on 1st of every month
between 10.00 a.m and 2.00 p.m, till filing
charge sheet or for three months whichever
earlier.

at
in
of
is
2.

He shall furnish documents regarding his address
proof and the address proof of his sureties before
the Investigating Officer at the time of furnishing
sureties.

3.

He shall appear before trial court on all dates of
hearing, without fail.

4.

He shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence
or influence the prosecution witnesses directly or
indirectly in any manner.

5.

He shall not leave the jurisdiction of the this court,
without prior permission.

6.

In the event any changes in the residential address,
petitioner and his surety shall intimate the same to
the trial court immediately without fail.

7.

Violation of any one of the aforesaid conditions,
bail granted herein shall automatically stands
cancelled.

(Dictated to the Stenographer directly on computer, typed by him and then corrected, signed and
pronounced by me in the open court on this the 27th day of June, 2022)
(Sadananda Nagappa Naik)
LIX ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS
JUDGE, CCH-60, BENGALURU.