KABC010015902023
IN THE COURT OF THE LXII ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS
JUDGE
BENGALURU CITY [CCH.63]
Dated: This the 30 th day of January, 2023
Present: Sri. A. EARANNA, M.Com., L.L.M.,
LXII Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru City.
Crl.Misc.No. 504/2023
Petitioners
1. Sri. Shivakumar B. M
S/o Muniswamy
Aged about 40 years
2. Devika T. V
W/o Shivakumar B.M
Both are R/at No.1027.
Manjunathaswamy Nilaya,
15th Cross, Kumaraswamy Layout,
Bengaluru-560 078
By Sri. Ramakrishna S, Advocate.
Vs.

Respondent:
State by Hanumantahanagar
Police station
Crl.Misc.No. 504/2023
2
Bengaluru
Rep. by Public Prosecutor.
O R DE R
The petition is filed by the petitioners under Section
438 of Cr.P.C for an order of anticipatory bail.
2.

On
the
strength
of
complainant
the
Hanumanthanagar police have registered the case in Crime
No. 314/2022 for the offence punishable under Sections
120B, 409, 420 r/w 34 of I.P.C.
3. In the bail petition it is contended that the
petitioners are innocents and they have not committed any
alleged
offences.

The
respondent
police
have
falsely
implicated the petitioner in the case on hand on the basis of
false complaint. The petitioners have not involved in the
alleged offences. The bank authorities after considering the
document sanction the loan of Rs. 25,00,000/- each to the
present petitioner. But the police have falsely implicated the
present case. They further contended that the alleged
offences U/S. 120B, 409, 420 r/w 34 of I.P.C, are not
punishable with life imprisonment or death sentence and
triable by the Magistrate. The petitioners are ready to abide
by any conditions that may be imposed by the Court on
them. The petitioners are having deep root in the society.

3
4.

Whereas,
the
learned
Crl.Misc.No. 504/2023
Public
Prosecutor
filed
objection along with report of I.O., by contending that the
petitioner is committed the offences punishable under
Sections 120B, 409, 420 r/w 34 of I.P.C. At this stage, the
petitioners are granted with anticipatory bail, the petitioners
may threaten the prosecution witnesses and they may
destroy the prosecution evidence or they may commit the
similar kind of offences and the possibility of petitioners
fleeing away from justice cannot be ruled out. Inter alia, on
these grounds, the learned Public Prosecutor prays for
dismissal of the bail petition.
5. Heard both sides. Perused the record.
6. Following points arise for consideration of this Court:
1.Whether the petitioners have made out
ground to enlarge them 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:
4
Crl.Misc.No. 504/2023
R E A SON S
8. Point No.1: The complainant is the Managing
Director of the “The Hanumantha Co-operative Bank Ltd.,
Bangalore. The present petitioners have got loan from the
said society. The petitioners have granted the above said
loan on 11/04/2017 of Rs. 25,00,000/- each. As per the
proceedings of the society that they have got loan, the
present petitioners have not involved in the present case.
On going through the records the said society has got one
President and 11 directors. After getting the property then
they have sanctioned the loan. On the other hand the
prosecution case is that the said persons have created the
documents and also created the signature of the advocate
then they have made sanctioned the above said loan. On
perusal of the entire records it seems that there is a civil
dispute between the petitioners and the complainant.
However the alleged offence are not punishable with life
imprisonment or death sentence and triable by the Court of
Magistrate. If the petitioners are kept in judicial custody it
amounts to pre-trial conviction. After full fledged trial then
the Court come to the conclusion the present petitioners are
committed the offence or not. Mere making the allegation
against the present petitioner is not sufficient to reject the
bail petitioner. However, on perusal of the records as well as
Crl.Misc.No. 504/2023
5
bail petition. This Court is of the opinion that the petitioners
are entitled to get the bail.
9.

Counsel
for
the
petitioner
argued
that
the
petitioner has not committed any offence as alleged by the
complainant police. Alleged offence is not punishable with
life imprisonment or death sentence. The petitioner is ready
to abide by the conditions imposed by the Court. Therefore
he prays to allow the bail application. Learned Public
Prosecutor have argued that if the accused released on bail
then there is chances of abscond and there is chances of
destroy the material objects and threaten the prosecution
witnesses. Therefore she prays to reject the bail application.
10. On perusal of materials on record, it shows that
the petitioners and other accused Nos. 2 to 6 have colluded
to each other and sanctioned the loan of Rs25,00,000/each to the accused Nos. 7 and 8 and all cheated to the
bank. Hence the complaint. Learned counsel for the
petitioners argued that as per the direction of the accused
Nos. 2 and 3. Hence the petitioners are not entitled for
anticipatory bail. On going through the records it reveals
that there is financial transaction between the complainant
and the petitioners. The alleged offences are not punishable
with death or imprisonment for life and same are triable by
the Court of Magistrate. Such being the case by considering
Crl.Misc.No. 504/2023
6
nature of the offence and considering the bail petition as
well as objection statement alleged offences are triable by
the Magistrate Court. Alleged offences are non bailable in
nature
and
not punishable
with
death
sentence
or
imprisonment for life. By considering the above facts this
Court is of the view that the petitioner is entitled for
anticipatory bail.
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
Crl.Misc.No. 504/2023
7
not
expected,
at
this
stage,
to
have
the
evidence
establishing the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable
doubt.
12. The petitioner claims to be the permanent
resident of address shown in the cause title of the bail
petition. It is urged that the petitioner is ready and willing
to furnish surety to the satisfaction of this Court to ensure
his attendance before the I.O and the Court and he is also
ready to abide by any conditions imposed by Court. As
such, possibility of the abscondance of petitioners is too
remote.
13. The apprehension and interest of the prosecution
that the petitioners may tamper with the prosecution
witnesses, flee away from justice can be taken and
safeguarded by imposing some suitable conditions. Hence
by considering all these aspects, I am of the opinion that
the petitioners are entitled for bail and accordingly, I
answer the above Point No.1 in the Affirmative.
14. Point No.2: In view of my findings on Point No.1,
I proceed to pass the following:
Crl.Misc.No. 504/2023
8
O R DE R
The anticipatory bail petition filed by
the petitioners under Section 438 of Cr.P.C
is hereby allowed.
The
directed
respondent
police
to
the
enlarge
are
hereby
petitioners
on
anticipatory bail in the event of their arrest
in Crime No. 314/2022 of respondent Police
Station for the offence punishable under
Sections 120B, 409 and 420 r/w 34 of
I.P.C., on execution of their 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
2nd Saturday in between 10.00 AM to 5.00
PM before the Jurisdictional Police till filing
the final report.
3. That the petitioner shall not hold any
threat to the complainant and shall not
Crl.Misc.No. 504/2023
9
tamper
with
any
of
the
prosecution
witnesses directly or indirectly.
4. That the petitioner shall furnish his
residential address proof and that of her
surety.
5. That the petitioner shall not indulge
in similar type of offences in future.
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.
(Dictated to the Typist, directly on computer, typed by her,
revised and corrected by me and then pronounced in the
open court on this the 30 th day of January 2023)
(A. EARANNA)
LXII Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge,
(CCH-63), Bengaluru.

10
Crl.Misc.No. 504/2023