KABC010088652024
IN THE COURT OF THE LXX ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL
AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPECIAL JUDGE,
BENGALURU(CCH-71)
Dated this the 6th day of April, 2024.
Present: Sri. Rajesh Karnam.K, B.Sc.,LL.B.,LL.M.,
LXX Additional City Civil and Sessions
Judge and Special Judge, Bengaluru.
Crl.Misc.No.3139/2024
PETITIONER/S: 1. Renu Gupta,
W/o.Rajesh Gupta,
Aged about 62 years,
2. Rajesh Gupta,
S/o.Parshotam Lal Gupta,
Aged about 64 years,
Both are R/at No.1, 6th Cross,
7th Main, near Safa Store,
Friends Colony,
Koramangala,
Bengaluru South,
Bengaluru-560 034.
(Rep.by Sri.M.S.M, Advocate).
-V/SRESPONDENTS:
1. The State by
Vivek Nagar Police Station,
Rep.by Public Prosecutor,
City Civil Court Complex,
Bengaluru-560 102.
Mahadev,
S/o.kaverappa,
2
Crl.Misc.No.3139/2024
Aged about 47 years,
R/at No.23, 3rd cross,
Srinivagilu,
Bengaluru.
ORDER
This petition is filed by the petitioners seeking for
anticipatory bail as jurisdictional Viveknagar police
have registered Crime No.54/2024 for the offences
punishable under sections 506 of IPC and sec.3(1)(r),
(s) of Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes Act
1989.

2.

The complainant lodged complaint alleging
that there was agreement to sell of property bearing
Municipal No.1, 6th cross, road, Srinivagilu, between
complainant Mahadev and petitioners on 25.3.2024
at 8.30 a.m and did not registered the property, and
went to court, accused persons trespassed into the
house of complainant and wrote O.S.No.25265/2024
on the wall of the house of complainant and
threatened them if they don’t sell the property and
abused them in filthy language by taking their caste.

3
3.

Crl.Misc.No.3139/2024
The grounds of the petition is that they are
innocent of alleged offence and the petitioners are
law abiding citizens. The petitioners are permanent
residents of Bengaluru. The complaint filed by the
complainant is nothing but abuse of process of law.
The petitioners have no criminal antecedents. The
petitioners have got valid and tenable defence. This
is a purely civil in nature. The petitioner Nos.1 and 2
are senior citizens aged about 62 and 64 years. The
petitioners are ready and willing to abide by the
conditions imposed by this court. Hence petitioners
are forced to come up with this petition.
4.

As against the petition, the learned Special
Public Prosecutor has filed objection submitting that
the petitioners hail from Jammu have abused and
threatened the complainant, they have abused in
filthy language and shown disrespect towards the
SC/ST community. As such prima facie case made
out. The petition is not maintainable u/s.18 and 18A
of SC/ST (POA) Act 1989.

4
5.

Crl.Misc.No.3139/2024
Investigating Officer has submitted report that
they
recorded
statement
of
eye
witnesses.

Accordingly custody of the petitioners are necessary
for enquiry.
6.

Heard the arguments of both side and perused
the records.
7.

The following points arise for my consideration;
1.

3.
8.

POINTS
Whether the petition filed
the petitioners made out
ground for the reason
considered is bail u/s.438
Cr.P.C.,?

by
a
to
of
What Order?

My answers to the above points are ;
Point No.1:
In the “Affirmative”
Point No.2: As per final order
for the following;
REASONS
9.

POINT NO.1: In the case on hand, learned
counsel for the petitioners submits that they are
senior citizens aged about 62 and 64 years. The
respondent No.2 is only his tenant. As the tenancy
5
Crl.Misc.No.3139/2024
is over the petitioners requested the complainant to
vacate the premises, as such as there is no any
improvement
in
existence
the
complainant
threatened the petitioners and he himself registered
false case against the petitioners even though there
is no any actual incident happened.
10.

The learned SPP argues the ingredients of
offence are made out. The exemption u/s.18 and
18A of SC/ST (POA) Act 1989 cannot be extended to
the petitioners. Accordingly seeks dismissal of the
petition.
11.

On going through the materials on record,
considering the age of the petitioners being senior
citizens, this court at this stage admittedly as
respondent No.2 being tenant of the petitioners,
considering the relationship between the parties, at
this stage this court is satisfied to consider the
prayer of the petitioners.
No.1
for
consideration
Accordingly this Point
is
answered
in
the
Affirmative.
12.

Point No.2: In view of my findings on Point
No.1, I proceed to pass the following;
6
Crl.Misc.No.3139/2024
ORDER
The Petition filed by the Petitioners
under Section 438 of Cr.P.C., is hereby
allowed.

Petitioners are ordered to be released
on anticipatory bail in the event of their
arrest in Cr.No.54/2024 on executing
their personal bond for Rs.50,000/-each,
before the court with one surety of
their/close
relative
on
the
following
conditions;
1.

The
petitioners
shall
appear
before the IO within 10 days from
the date of receipt of this order.
4. The petitioners shall regularly
appear before the IO as and
when they called for the purpose
of investigation.
5. The petitioners shall not tamper
with
prosecution
witnesses
directly or indirectly.
4. The petitioners shall not indulged
in any other offence.

7
Crl.Misc.No.3139/2024
If any of the above conditions violated, the IO
is at liberty to move for cancellation of bail.

(Dictated to the stenographer Grade I, transcribed her,
transcription corrected, signed and then pronounced in
open court on this the 6th day of April, 2024).

(Rajesh Karnam.K)
LXX Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge
and Special Judge, Bengaluru.