11
Crl. Misc. No.3126/2024
KABC010088352024
IN THE COURT OF THE LXI ADDL. CITY CIVIL,
SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY.
Dated this the 19 th day of April, 2024
-: PRESENT :- SMT.NISHARANI A.C., B.A., LL.B.,
III ACC & SJ, Bengaluru
I/C LXI ACC & SJ
Bangalore, (CCH-62)
CRL. MISC. No.3126/2024
Petitioner/s
:
1. Sri.Suman @ Suman N.P.,
S/o. Late N.S.Prasad,
Aged about 38 years,
R/at No.342, ‘Vasuprabha’,
6th Cross, 2nd Main,
K.R.Layout, 6th Stage,
Bengaluru-560 078.

(A1)
2. Sri.Raghavendra
@ Raghavendra R.,
S/o. Late B.K.Ramanna,
Aged about 51 years,
R/at No.65, M.R.Garden,
Sanjaynagar,
Bengaluru-560 094.

(A2)
3. Sri. Lokesh B.K.,
S/o. Sri.Keshvaiah,
No.71, Flat No.4-B, 4th Floor,
11
Crl. Misc. No.3126/2024
Krishnata Kuteera Apartment,
Basavanagudi,
Bengaluru-560 004.
(A3)
(By Sri. Manjunath H., Adv.)
V/s.
Respondent
:
The State by
Jayanagar Police Station
Bengaluru.
(Rep. by Public Prosecutor,
Bengaluru.)

ORDER ON ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION ONE
FILED BY THE PETITIONERS UNDER SECTION 438 OF
Cr.P.C.
This criminal Mis. Petition is filed by the petitioners
under Section 438 of Cr.P.C., seeking the relief of anticipatory
bail in relation to the case bearing No-Cr.-0116/2024, which
is registered by the Jayanagar Police Station, Bengaluru
alleging
that
petitioners
have
committed
the
offences
punishable under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 r/w. Sec.
34 of IPC.
2.

The petitioners contents that they are innocent of
the alleged offences and have not committed any offences and
there are no reasonable grounds to record to hold that the
petitioners are guilty of an offence punishable with death or
imprisonment for life. Petitioners are permanent residents of
Bengaluru city and they came from respectable family. The
11
Crl. Misc. No.3126/2024
allegations made by the complainant is totally civil in nature
and even though these petitioners not involved in the crime
as alleged against them and respondent police are permitted
to convert the civil matter in to criminal matter by putting
threatening to arrest and abuse their power and they are
ready and willing to abide by the terms and conditions that
may be imposed by this court and they are also ready to offer
solvent surety to the satisfaction of the Court.
3.

On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor
has filed his objections along with the report of the I.O. &
opposed the above application that the grounds urged for
seeking anticipatory bail are not satisfactory & the materials
placed on record prima-facie discloses the involvement of the
petitioners in commission of the alleged offences and now at
this stage if the petitioners are granted anticipatory bail then
they may threaten, abscond & tamper the prosecution
witnesses & accordingly prayed for rejection of the bail
petition.
4.

In view of the above said facts and circumstances,
the points that arise for my consideration are as follows;
1) Whether the anticipatory bail
petition filed by the petitioners
under Section 438 of Cr.P.C.,
deserves to be allowed?
2) To what Order?

11
Crl. Misc. No.3126/2024
5.

I have carefully perused the entire materials
available on record and heard the arguments of learned
counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor
for the respondent.
6.

Now, my findings on the above points are as
follows:Point No.1 – In Negative,
Point No.2 – As per final Order, for the following;
R E A SON S
7.

Point No.1:- On perusal of the FIR & complaint it
is alleged that on 26.03.2024 complainant H.N.Prakash made
police complaint that he got some money from selling of his
landed property and he was in search of one site in
Bengaluru
and
in
this
regard
through
his
relative
K.G.Krishna he got to know about the petitioners/accused
No.1 to 3, and they have shown the site property No.36, 4 th
Block, 7th B Main Road, Jayanagar, Bengaluru owned by one
Sri.Zachariah Varughese and he decided to purchase the said
site and verified the documents of the said site and got to
know about same is measuring 2200 Sq.ft. standing in the
name of Zachariah Varughese. When he tried to contact the
said
Zachariah
Varughese,
the
petitioners/A1
to
A3
introduced the said Sri.Zachariah Varughese as owner of the
11
Crl. Misc. No.3126/2024
said site and he talked with sale price on 22.04.2022, they
visited M/s. SLV Hotel, Chamarajpet, Bengaluru and even his
relative K.G.Krishna also visited the said Hotel and sale price
was finalized @ Rs.1 Crore and got the Sale agreement
registered in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Jayanagar,
Bengaluru and he got paid a sum of Rs.30 Lakhs through
RTGS to Zachariah Varughese, he also got paid a sum of
Rs.30 Lakh through RTGS on 8.06.2022, he got transferred
another amount of Rs.20 Lakhs and he also got transferred
through RTGS to another amount of Rs.20 Lakhs from
complainant’s mother-in-law’s Yes Bank Account and also
paid a sum of Rs.25 Lakhs cash towards the broker
commission to petitioners/A1 to A3 and subsequently when
Sale deed was not registered into complainant’s name and
accused No.1 to 3 did not respond positively and on
postponing the issue. Hence, complainant was forced to make
enquire and know about, original owner Zachariah Varughese
was residing at USA and accused No.1 to 3 having created the
fake documents and shown the fake person as Zachariah
Varughese and got obtained money from him and thereby
played fraud by receiving Rs.1,25,00,000/- and thereby
committed the alleged offences punishable under Section
419, 420, 467, 468, 471 r/w. Sec. 34 of IPC.

8.

Now, it is the contention of the petitioners that they
are innocent of
the offences alleged and they have been
11
Crl. Misc. No.3126/2024
falsely implicated in the instant case and they are ready and
willing to abide by the conditions that may be imposed by the
court for their release on bail.

9.

On the other hand though the prosecution has
opposed the case of the petitioners that if the petitioners are
granted anticipatory bail then they may threaten, abscond
and tamper the prosecution witnesses is concerned, the same
holds water as admittedly the FIR & complaint at this stage
allegedly shows that the petitioners along with other accused
are involved in misappropriated a sum of more than
Rs.1,25,00,000/- from complainant/victim have suppressed
the above facts.

10.

I am aware that this Court cannot and is not
supposed to shift the evidence made available by the
prosecution at the time of deciding the bail petition. However,
only for the purpose of deciding that whether the petitioners
are entitled for anticipatory bail or not, I discuss the facts
alleged by the prosecution and whatever I say, while
disposing of this bail petition, cannot be construed as an
expression of opinion on the merits of the of the main case.

11. And more over since the materials placed on record
including the report of the I.O. further shows at this stage
that the petitioners themselves have admitted the above said
11
Crl. Misc. No.3126/2024
misappropriation by them and as such an amount of
Rs.1,25,00,000/- have been recovered so far from the
accused persons and since the investigation is still incomplete
and since the presence of the petitioners are very much
required for thorough investigation by the I.O. and since there
is likelihood of tampering and destroying the evidence of the
complainant & since the petitioners have neither produced
the alleged internal fact finding committee investigating
report nor placed any cogent materials to show that they were
no where connected to the alleged offences & since in the
rulings of (2013) 7 SCC 439 {Y.S Jagan Mohan Reddy V/s.
CBI}
&
(2020)
13
SCC
791
{P.Chidambaram
V/s.

Directorate of Enforcement} the Hon’ble Supreme Court
of India has clearly held that
‘Power under Section 438 of
Cr.P.C., being an extraordinary relief, has to be exercised
sparingly, more so, in cases of Economic Offences.
Economic Offences stand as a different clause as they
affect the Economic Fabric of the society. The privilege of
the pre-arrest bail should be granted only in exceptional
cases
as
it
would
definitely
hamper
the
effective
investigation’ then I am of the considered opinion that the
petitioners have not at all made out any cogent case with
sufficient
grounds
to
grant
the
anticipatory
bail
and
accordingly, I have answered the above point No.1 in
Negative.

11
Crl. Misc. No.3126/2024
12.

Point No.2 :- In view of the discussion made on
point No.1 and further holding it in the negative, I proceed to
pass the following:O R DE R
The anticipatory bail petition filed by the
petitioners
u/s
438
of
Cr.P.C.,
is
hereby
rejected.
(Dictated to the Stenographer Gr-II, transcribed and typed by him, corrected, signed and
then pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 19 th day of April, 2024).

(NISHARANI A.C)
I/C LXI ACC & SJ, B’luru