1
Crl.Misc.3220/2024
KABC010090832024
IN THE COURT OF THE LXVIII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND
SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY (CCH-69)
Dated this the 20 th day of April 2024
:PRESENT:
Sri.Sabappa, B.Com., LLB (Spl.)
LXVIII Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru City.
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.3220/2024
PETITIONERS :
1.

Suma. B.S,
W/o Karana Kumar.H,
Aged about 45 years,
R/at No.572, 1st Main Road,
Srinagar, Banashankari 1st Stage,
Bengaluru South,
Bengaluru – 560 050.

2.

Havyas Kadupaje,
C/o Somappa.K.M,
Aged about 28 years,
R/at Anantham Villa,
Kudupaje House,
Opposite Ammanavana Resort,
Bolluru, Rasulpura,
Kodagu, Karnataka – 571234.

2
Crl.Misc.3220/2024
3.

Nitin Singh,
C/o Vinod Verma,
Aged about 28 years,
R/at A1-16, Gokuldham Tenarment,
I.O.C Road,
Nr, Kirtidev Society,
D-Cabin, Ahmedabad City,
Ahmedabad,
Gujarat – 3800193.

4.

S. Anand,
S/o Chikkasiddegowda,
Aged about 48 years,
R/at No.77/2, 3rd Cross,
Gnanabharathi University Main Road,
Bengaluru Vishwavidyalaya,
Bengaluru – 560 056.
(By Smt. Anrutha.N, Adv.,)
V/s
RESPONDENT :
State by;
Channammanakere Achukattu Police
Station, Bengaluru.

(Represented by Public Prosecutor)
ORDER ON BAIL PETITION U/SEC.438 OF CR.P.C
This petition is filed by the petitioners under Sec.438 of
Cr.P.C., seeking anticipatory bail in the event of their arrest in
connection with Cr.No.63/2024 registered by Chennammanakere
Achukattu police, Bangalore, for the offences punishable under
Secs.120B, 406, 420 and 506 of I.P.C.

3
2.

Crl.Misc.3220/2024
The brief facts of the case of the petitioners is that, the
respondent police registered case against the petitioners in
Cr.No.63/2024 on the basis of complaint lodged by one Rajiv.P. It is
alleged in the complaint that, the petitioners colluded with each other
and misappropriated Crores of Rupees from Pacecom Technologies
Pvt., Ltd., and thereby committed breach of trust and cheated the
company. Hence, complainant filed complaint before the respondent
police. Thereby, the petitioners are apprehending their arrest by the
respondent police. Thereby, they have approached this Court
seeking anticipatory bail.
3. The grounds urged by the petitioners are as under.
The petitioners submitted that, they are innocents of the
alleged offences. The incident happened from 05.02.2018 to
18.01.2024. But not even single complaint or FIR came to be
registered in this period. Moreover, there is delay of 2 months in
registering the FIR. The accused No.1 and 2 had filed complaint
against the complainant, his wife and 6 others and same is
registered in the respondent Police Station Cr.No.13/2024 for the
offences punishable U/Secs.120B, 403, 405, 406, 408, 420 of I.P.C
and Secs.43, 72, 66 of I.T.Act. The rest of accused Nos.3 to 12 are
made as scapegoat who have no knowledge. The I.O colluded with
the complainant has made false allegations against the petitioners
without any materials against them. There is no compliance of notice
served upon in the present case. After coming to know about about
the registration of false case against accused No.1 and these
4
Crl.Misc.3220/2024
petitioners, they have gone to respondent Police Station to file the
reply to the complaint. But the I.O has made them to wait till evening
and sent them back without acknowledging the reply from them.
They have sent reply through RPAD to respondent Police Station,
Commissioner of Police, ACP, V.V.Puram Sub-Division, DCP South
Jayanagar on 23.03.2024. The accused No.1 and others have filed
complaint against I.O and Mr.Rajeev.P before Karnataka State
Human Rights Commission, Bengaluru. The only allegation against
accused No.7 is that he has trespassed into the organization
premises and entered into meeting room without any authorization
and threatened the complainant to leave the organization by
returning shares back to accused No.1 is said to be false as on that
day. The petitioner No.4/accused No.7 is working with CEP Global
LLP since February 2019 as one of its key managerial staff. No other
allegations are made against the petitioner except mentioning their
names in the subject column of the complaint. The allegations made
in the FIR do not constitute the offences alleged against the
petitioners. The petitioners have not committed the alleged offences.
There is no prima facie case. Without issuing notice under Sec.41A
of Cr.P.C by the I.O and without making preliminary enquiry this FIR
is said to be registered. The petitioners are having very good case
on merits. The defacto complainant has not verified any documents
books of account nor viewed any of the company documents to
prove that there is loss/mismanage to the company. There is of
breach of trust. The petitioners are ready to abide by any conditions
imposed by this Court. They are ready and willing to offer surety to
5
Crl.Misc.3220/2024
the satisfaction of this court. They are permanent residents of
address mentioned in the cause title. If the petitioners are arrested,
they will be put to great hardship and sufferings. 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 P.I, Chennammanakere
Achukattu Police Station. In the objections the learned Public
Prosecutor has narrated the facts as stated in the FIR. During the
course of investigation the I.O has visited the spot and conducted
spot panchanama. The investigation is under progress. The
respondent police have issued notice to the petitioners U/Sec.41A
of Cr.P.C. The petitioners have cheated the complainant. If the
petitioners are granted bail, there is every chance that they may
abscond, commit similar offences and 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 petitioners have 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:
6
Point No.1 :
In the Affirmative,
Point No.2 :
As per final order,
for the following;
Crl.Misc.3220/2024
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 petitioners for the offence
punishable U/Secs.120B, 406, 420 & 506 r/w 34 of I.P.C. The
petitioners contended that they are not involved in the commission of
the alleged offences. They are ready to abide by any conditions
imposed by this Court. The prosecution contended that, the
petitioners are involved in the commission of the alleged offences. If
they are enlarged on bail, they will abscond and tamper the
prosecution witnesses.
9. In this case defacto complainant appeared and filed
objection statement. It is the replication of the complaint.
10. On perusal of the FIR and complaint, it is noticed that, one
Rajiv.P has lodged the complaint against the petitioners. It is the
case of the prosecution that the petitioners have cheated the
company by misappropriating Crores of Rupees. In order to
ascertain the same, the petitioners and others are required for
interrogation. Moreover, the transaction taken place in the year
2018-2024. The complainant stated that, the petitioners colluded
with each other and misappropriated Crores of rupees from
7
Crl.Misc.3220/2024
Pacecom Technologies Pvt. Ltd., Thereby, the complainant has
lodged the complaint. The accused No.2 has filed complaint against
the complainant and others before respondent Police Station and the
same is registered in Cr.No.13/2024 for the same offences. Thereby,
the respondent police issued notice to the complainant to appear
before them for enquiry. In order to ascertain whether the petitioners
are involved in the commission of the alleged offences, it required
trial and investigation. At this stage, based on the complaint and FIR
it is not possible to ascertain the involvement of the petitioners.
Moreover, the alleged offences are not punishable with death or
imprisonment for life. The alleged offences are triable by the
Magistrate.

11. It is pertinent to note that, bail is a rule, jail is exception.
The legal doctrine is laid down for safe guarding a fundamental right
under Article 21 of Constitution of India, granting the right to life and
liberty. The petitioners have also relied upon the decision reported in
Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia V/s State of Punjab and another decisions of
Hon’ble Apex Court, wherein it is held that, FIR is not precedent
condition to grant the anticipatory bail and recently in the case of
Sushila Aggarwal held that, there is no limit to the currency of an
order of anticipatory bail. The Hon’ble High Court or the Court of
Sessions have vested with discretion judicious power under Sec.438
of Cr.P.C even in a case where no FIR is lodged and a person is
apprehending his arrest, he can apply for anticipatory bail. The court
which grants anticipatory bail must take care to specify the offence
8
Crl.Misc.3220/2024
or offences in respect of which alone the order will be effective. Here
in this case, the documents relied by the petitioners reveals that the
petitioners being the residents of the addresses mentioned in the
cause title. In view of the notice issued by the respondent police, the
petitioners are apprehending their arrest by the respondent police.
On going through the entire records and other materials placed by
the petitioners, this Court feels that, the petitioners have made out
sufficient grounds to enlarge them on bail.

12. 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 petitioners have made out sufficient grounds to enlarge
them on bail. Moreover, the prosecution contended that in case
petitioners are enlarged on bail, they 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 petitioners and granted bail, the apprehension of the prosecution
could be safeguarded. At this juncture, on perusal of entire records,
this Court feels that the petitioners have made out sufficient grounds
to enlarge them on bail. Hence, I answer above point No.1 in the
Affirmative.

9
13.

POINT NO.2:
Crl.Misc.3220/2024
In view of my findings point No.1, I
proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
Bail
petition
filed
by
the
petitioners
under
Sec. 438 of Cr.P.C is hereby allowed.
Petitioners
anticipatory
bail
Cr.No.63/2024
are
in
of
ordered
the
event
to
of
be
released
their
Channammanakere
on
arrest
in
Achukattu
P.S., on executing their personal bonds for Rs.50,000/each with one surety for the like sum on the following
conditions.
1. The petitioners shall appear before the I.O
within 30 days from the date of this order and cooperate for investigation.
2. The petitioners shall not tamper with the
Prosecution witnesses either directly or indirectly in
any manner.
3. They shall co-operate for investigation by
the concerned police and regularly appear before the
concerned court as and when required.
4. They shall not abscond from the ordinary
residence and they should furnish the address proof
to the concerned police.

10
Crl.Misc.3220/2024
5. They shall not indulge in any kind of
offence.
6. They shall not leave the jurisdiction of the
court without prior permission.
7. They shall mark the attendance in the
respondent P.S between 10.00 a.m to 6.00 p.m once
in a month i.e., on 2nd Sunday till filing of the final
report.
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 20 th day of April, 2024)
(Sabappa)
LXVIII Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru City.

11
Crl.Misc.3220/2024
ORDERS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN
COURT, VIDE SEPARATE ORDER
Bail petition filed by the petitioners
under Sec. 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.63/2024 of
Channammanakere Achukattu P.S., on
executing their personal bonds for
Rs.50,000/- each with one surety for the
like sum on the following conditions.
1. The petitioners shall appear
before the I.O within 30 days from the
date of this order and co-operate for
investigation.
2. The petitioners shall not tamper
with the Prosecution witnesses either
directly or indirectly in any manner.
3. They shall co-operate for
investigation by the concerned police and
regularly appear before the concerned
court as and when required.
4. They shall not abscond from the
ordinary residence and they should furnish
the address proof to the concerned police.
5. They shall not indulge in any
kind of offence.

12
Crl.Misc.3220/2024
6. They shall not leave the
jurisdiction of the court without prior
permission.
7. They shall mark the attendance
in the respondent P.S between 10.00 a.m
to 6.00 p.m once in a month i.e., on 2 nd
Sunday till filing of the final report.
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.