1
Crl.Misc.526/2023
KABC010016562023
IN THE COURT OF THE LXVIII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND
SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY (CCH-69)
Dated this the 2 nd day of February 2023
:PRESENT:
Sri.Sabappa, B.Com., LLB (Spl.)
LXVIII Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru City.
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.526/2023
PETITIONER :
Srinivasan Thangavel,
S/o Thangavel,
Aged about 45 years,
Director – Hoskote Neo Homes Ltd.,
(Subsidiary of Artha Real Estate,
Corporation Limited), No.110/37,
Solitaire Building, Service Road,
Outer Ring Road, Marathahalli,
Bengaluru – 560 037.
(By Sri. K.N. Nanjireddy, Adv.,)
V/s
RESPONDENT :
State by;
H.A.L Police Station, Bengaluru.

(Represented by Public Prosecutor)
2
Crl.Misc.526/2023
ORDER ON BAIL PETITION U/SEC.438 OF CR.P.C.
This petition is filed by the petitioner under Sec.438 of
Cr.P.C., seeking anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest in
connection with Cr.No.525/2019 (C.C.No.1999/2022) registered
by H.A.L police, Bangalore, for the offences punishable under
Secs.406, 420 r/w 34 of I.P.C.
2.

The brief facts of the case of the petitioner is that, the
respondent police registered case against him in Cr.No.525/2019 on
the basis of the complaint lodged by one Sri. Kirandeep Kaur. It is
alleged in the complaint that, the complainant had invested an
amount of Rs.14,44,713 in “Hoskote Neo Homes Ltd.,” of Artha
Developers through Karvy Private Wealth on 20.04.2017 through
their Delhi Office in their prelaunch commercial project Emprasa
Startup City Phase 2. But they have not provided any flat to the
complainant nor repaid the amount paid by the complainant. Hence,
complainant
lodged
the
complaint.

Hence,
petitioner
is
apprehending his arrest by the respondent police. Thereby, he has
approached this Court seeking anticipatory bail.
3. The grounds urged by the petitioner are as under.
The petitioner submitted that, he is innocent of the alleged
offences. He has been falsely implicated in the above crime by the
police for extraneous reasons with oblique motive. Even if the
allegation made against him are accepted in toto, there are no
reasonable grounds to believe that he is guilty of the alleged
3
Crl.Misc.526/2023
offences. The allegations made against him are baseless. The
alleged offences are not punishable with death or life imprisonment.
The petitioner is the Director of “Hoskote Neo Homes Ltd.,” which is
the subsidiary of Artha Real Estate Corporation Limited. In this case,
the police have completed the investigation and filed the
chargesheet. In this case the complainant had earlier issued legal
notice on 30.10.2019 and also filed complaint before the Delhi
Police in Barakhamba Police Station, in addition to approaching
RERA-K on 04.01.2021 on the same set of facts. The petitioner
company has repaid a sum of Rs.4,63,333/- as monthly incentive on
the part sale consideration amount of Rs.14,44,713/- to the
complainant on a quarterly basis between April 2017 and March
2019, receipt of which amount was acknowledged by the
complainant prior to her seeking cancellation of the flat and refund
of the balance amount in a sum of Rs.9,81,380/-. As the offers and
alternatives put forward by the petitioner company were not
accepted by the complainant, the issue was resolved at HAL Police
Station. Accordingly, a settlement agreement dated 08.02.2021 was
executed between the complainant and the petitioner company by
refunding the amount by way of two D.Ds for Rs.4,91,380/- and
another for Rs.4,90,000/-, in favour of the complainant as full and
final settlement. The complainant has agreed the terms and
conditions of the settlement agreement in letter and she had also
agreed to withdraw the complaints filed before the Delhi police,
RERA and HAL Police Station. It is further submitted that, the
petitioner has no bad antecedents. He is a law abiding citizen. He is
4
Crl.Misc.526/2023
ready to abide by any conditions imposed by this Court. He is ready
and willing to offer surety for his regular appearance before this
Court. Hence, sought for grant of anticipatory bail.
4.

The learned Public Prosecutor has filed objections to
the bail petition along with the report of the Police Inspector, H.A.L
Police Station. In the objections the learned Public Prosecutor has
narrated the facts as stated in the FIR. The petitioner has cheated
the complainant. Petitioner is involved in the alleged offences. If the
petitioner is granted bail, there is every chance that he may abscond
and is not co-operate with the investigation and may tamper the
evidence. Therefore, the P.P has sought for rejection of bail.
5.

Heard both sides. Perused the materials on record.

6. The points that arise for my consideration are:
1. Whether the petitioner has made out sufficient
grounds for grant of anticipatory bail as sought
for?
2. What order?
7.

My findings to the above points are as follows:
Point No.1 :
In the Affirmative,
Point No.2 :
As per final order,
for the following;
5
Crl.Misc.526/2023
REASONS
8.

POINT No.1: I have gone through the bail petition,
objections statement and records. It is noticed that, the respondent
police registered the case against the petitioner for the offence
punishable U/Secs.406 & 420 r/w 34 of I.P.C. It is contended by the
petitioner that, he is not involved in the alleged offence. The
respondent police falsely implicated the petitioner in this case. He is
ready by any conditions imposed by this court. On perusal of the
records, the alleged offences are not punishable with death or life
imprisonment. The alleged offences are triable by the Magistrate
Court. The documents relied by the petitioner reveals that the
incident took place in the year 2017. The respondent police
registered the case in the year 2019. Later on the respondent police
submitted the final report against the petitioner and another. The trial
court took the cognizance of the offence and issued NBW against
the petitioner and another. It is further noticed there is settlement
agreement between the petitioner and the complainant the petitioner
has made part payment of Rs.9,81,380/- to the complainant. As per
the terms of agreement, the complainant has to withdraw the case
against the petitioner. The petitioner has made part payment
through D.D to the complainant. It is intimated by the petitioner
company to the concerned police in writing. This goes to show that
the matter in dispute between the complainant and petitioner are
settlement by way of agreement. In the meanwhile, the respondent
police filed the final report against the petitioner.

6
Crl.Misc.526/2023
9. The prosecution contended in case, the petitioner is
enlarged on bail, he will try to abscond and tamper the prosecution
witnesses. On this point, I would like to mention that the respondent
police had already filed final report against the petitioner and
another. Thereby, the question of tampering the prosecution
witnesses does not arise at all. At the same time, I would like to
mention that the petitioner is a permanent resident of Bangalore. He
is ready to abide by the conditions imposed by this Court. Thereby,
at this stage, this Court feels that, if the petitioner is enlarged on bail
by putting some stringent conditions, it will protect the interest of the
prosecution. Otherwise, the family of the petitioner will suffer great
hardship.
10. At this juncture, this Court feels that, while considering the
prayer for grant of anticipatory bail, a balance has to be struck
between two factors namely, no prejudice should be caused to the
free, fair and full investigation and there should be prevention of
harassment, humiliation and unjustified detention of the accused. In
view of the above discussion, I come to the conclusion that at this
stage the petitioner has made out sufficient grounds to enlarge him
on bail. Moreover, the prosecution contended that in case petitioner
is enlarged on bail, he may abscond, threaten the prosecution
witnesses and hamper the evidence. Thereby this court come to
conclusion that if some stringent conditions are imposed on the
petitioner and granted bail, the apprehension of the prosecution
could be safeguarded. At this juncture, on perusal of entire records,
this Court feels that the petitioner has made out sufficient grounds to
7
enlarge him on bail. Hence I
Crl.Misc.526/2023
answer above point No.1 in the
Affirmative.
11.

POINT NO.2:
In view of my findings point No.1, I
proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
Bail
petition
filed
by
the
petitioner
under
Sec. 438 of Cr.P.C is hereby allowed.
Petitioner
anticipatory
bail
is
in
ordered
the
to
event
be
of
released
his
on
arrest
in
Cr.No.525/2019 (C.C.No.1999/2022) of H.A.L P.S.,
on executing his personal bond for Rs.1,00,000/- with
two sureties for the like sum on the following conditions.
1. The petitioner shall appear before the trial
court within 15 days from the date of this order.
2. The petitioner shall not tamper with the
Prosecution witnesses either directly or indirectly in
any manner.
3. He shall regularly appear before the
concerned court as and when required.
4. He shall not abscond from the ordinary
residence and he should furnish the address proof
to the concerned police.

8
Crl.Misc.526/2023
5. He shall not indulge in any kind of offence.
6. He shall not leave the jurisdiction of the
court without prior permission.
If any of the above conditions violated the IO
is at liberty to move for cancellation of bail.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, typed by her directly on Computer,
revised, corrected and then pronounced by me in the open court on this
the 2 nd day of February, 2023)
(Sabappa)
LXVIII Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru City.

9
Crl.Misc.526/2023
ORDERS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN
COURT, VIDE SEPARATE ORDER
Bail petition filed by the petitioner under Sec.
438 of Cr.P.C is hereby allowed.
Petitioner is ordered to be released on
anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest in
Cr.No.525/2019 (C.C.No.1999/2022) of H.A.L
P.S., on executing his personal bond for
Rs.1,00,000/- with two sureties for the like sum on
the following conditions.
1. The petitioner shall appear before the trial
court within 15 days from the date of this order.
2. The petitioner shall not tamper with the
Prosecution witnesses either directly or indirectly in
any manner.
3. He shall regularly appear before the
concerned court as and when required.
4. He shall not abscond from the ordinary
residence and he should furnish the address proof to
the concerned police.
5. He shall not indulge in any kind of offence.
6. He shall not leave the jurisdiction of the
court without prior permission.
If any of the above conditions violated the IO
is at liberty to move for cancellation of bail.

LXVIII A.C.C & S.J,
Bengaluru City.

10
Crl.Misc.526/2023