1
Crl.Misc.No.3192/2024
KABC010090002024
IN THE COURT OF THE XXVII ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND
SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH 9) AND HOLDING
CONCURRENT CHARGE OF
LXIX ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH 70)
BANGALORE CITY
Dated this the 10th day of April, 2024
PRESENT
Sri. Hareesha A., B.A.,LL.B,
XXVII Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge (CCH 9)
and also holding concurrent charge of the court of
69th Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge (CCH 70).
Crl.Misc.No.3192/2024
Petitioners;
1. Sri S.Venkatesh
s/o S.Sriramulu,
aged about 46 years,
r/at No. 2,
Perody Villa, 5th main,
10th cross, Vijaya Bank Layout,
Bilekahalli,
Bangalore South,
Bengaluru.
2. Sri Praveen K.S.
s/o Surendran K.G.
aged about 30 years,
2
Crl.Misc.No.3192/2024
Native at Kalickal
Tea Company
Pottankad, Baisonvally,
Idukki, Kerala.
3. Sri Hari Satheesan
s/o Satheesan
aged about 24 years,
Native at No. Kalickal,
Josegiri,
Pottankad, Baisonvally,
Idukki Kerala,
both petitioner No.2 and 3 are
residing in Bengaluru with
petitioner No.1 at
No. 2,
Perody Villa, 5th main,
10th cross, Vijaya Bank Layout,
Bilekahalli,
Bengaluru South.
(By Sri Anil Kumar, Advocate )
Respondent :
­V/S­
State of Karnataka by
Jayanagar P.S, B`lore
(Represented by Public
Prosecutor)
ORDER ON BAIL PETITION FILED
U/SEC. 438 OF CR.P.C.
The petitioners have invoked the jurisdiction of this court
under Sec. 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.)

3
Crl.Misc.No.3192/2024
citing a reasonable apprehension of imminent arrest by the
respondent police, in connection with Crime No. 109/2024,
wherein the petitioners stands as as accused No.1 to 3 of
offences punishable u/sec. 408, 420, 381 r/w 34 of Indian Panel
Code.
2. The petitioners pleading false implication and absence
of primafacie
material supporting the charges of offences
necessitating punishable u/sec. 408, 420, 381 r/w 34 of IPC,
expressing genuine apprehension of imminent arrest by the
respondent police, sought for their release on pre­arrest bail.
3. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has filed
objection contending that, there exists prima­facie material on
record indicating that the petitioners have allegedly committed
the offences in question, hence sought to dismiss the petition.
4. I have heard the argument an perused the petition
averments. The point that would arise for my determination
is:
1. Whether the petitioners have made out
any grounds to enlarge them on bail u/sec.
438 of Cr.P.C.?

4
Crl.Misc.No.3192/2024
2. What order?
5. My answer is in the Affirmative for the following;
REASONS
6.

POINT NO.1;
The General Manager of
Comfort Service Apartment
AMC
has lodged a complaint on
20.3.2024 against the petitioners alleging that the first
petitioner being the Manager and other petitioners as the
Assistants working in the AMC Comfort Service Apartment
wherein they have misappropriated the booking amount and
stolen the hard disk containing entire data, thereby committed
the offence punishable u/sec. 408, 420, 381 r/w 34 of IPC. It is
alleged that the 2nd petitioner has remained absent from
13.3.2024 without any intimation to the managing authority.
Similarly the other petitioner also remained unauthorized
absent from the work. Upon verification, it was discovered that
the hard disk containing crucial data was absent from the hotel
premises, a fact captured by the CCTV footage. Additionally, it
is alleged that the accused persons also pilfered articles valued
5
Crl.Misc.No.3192/2024
at Rs. 2 lakhs from the kitchen room of the hotel. Subsequently,
based on the aforementioned complaint, an FIR was lodged
against the petitioners for the aforementioned offenses.
7.

The learned counsel for petitioners has produced
the resignation letter which was sent through E­mail to the
Manager of the Hotel dated 13.3.2024. The present complaint
was lodged on 20.3.2024 at about 4.30 pm. The learned counsel
for petitioners has produced the account statement from
1.11.2023 to 10.3.2024 which shows that initially the first
petitioner was drawing salary of Rs. 39,800/­ and in the month
of March the Hotel management has paid Rs. 29,000/­,
therefore the petitioner being disappointed with reduction of
salary resigned to the post given to the petitioner, which
prompted the complainant to file a false complaint with
baseless allegations. The alleged offences though non bailable
in nature, not punishable with death or imprisonment for life.
In light of the arguments put forth by the learned counsel for
the petitioners, if indeed the petitioners were responsible for
stealing the hard disk, it is improbable that the complainant
6
Crl.Misc.No.3192/2024
would have access to the CCTV footage, as claimed in the
complaint. Moreover, it is alleged that the petitioners have
stolen articles worth Rs. 2 lakhs from the kitchen room, it
appears that there is a dispute between the Management and
the petitioners, that may be the reason for filing of the present
complaint. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case,
I am of the opinion that it is just and appropriate to allow the
petition, albeit with stringent conditions. Apart from that the
alleged offences are though non bailable in nature, they are not
punishable with death or imprisonment for life and they are
triable by the court of Magistrate of First Class. To address the
prosecution’s concerns regarding the potential flight risk,
stringent conditions can be imposed as a measure to mitigate
such apprehensions. Accordingly the Point No.1 is answered in
the affirmative.
9. Point No.2: By considering the above over all reasons
this court proceed to pass the following;
ORDER
The petition filed u/sec. 438 of Cr.P.C. by the
Petitioners is hereby allowed.

7
Crl.Misc.No.3192/2024
In the event of arrest of petitioners, in connection
with Cr. No. 109/2024 registered by the respondent police
station for the offence punishable u/sec. 408, 420, 381 r/w
34 of
IPC, the respondent police hereby directed to
release them on bail, on obtaining their personal bond for
Rs.1,00,000/­ each with a surety for the likesum to the
satisfaction of the Investigating officer, subject to the
following conditions.
1. The petitioners shall appear before the police and
trial court as and when summoned for the purpose of
investigation or trial.
2. The petitioners shall not threaten or tamper with the
Prosecution witnesses directly or indirectly.
3. The petitioners shall not commit similar offence.
4. The petitioners shall cooperate for investigation.
(Dictated to the Stenographer Grade ­ I, transcript thereof is
corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in open court on
this the 10th day of April, 2024)
(Hareesha A.)
XXVII Addl. CC & SJ
holding c/c of 69th Addl. City Civil and
Sessions Judge,Bangalore.