1
Crl.Misc. No.499/2023
KABC010015802023
IN THE COURT OF LXIX ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL
AND SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH 70)
Present:
Sri. Rajesh Karnam.K.,B.Sc., LL.B.,LL.M.,
LXIX Additional City Civil and
Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.

Dated this the 27th day of January, 2023
Crl.Misc.No.499/2023
Petitioners:
Sri.Umesh C.S.
S/o C.H.Shankar
Aged about 43 years
R/at No.22, 6th Main,
Sri.Siddivinayaka Layout,
Virupakshapura,
Vidyaranyapura
Bengaluru­560 097
(By Sri. Praveen Kumar Muguli, Adv.)
Vs.

Respondents
:
State of Karnataka
By Kodigehalli police station
Bengaluru.
(By Public Prosecutor)
2
Crl.Misc. No.499/2023
ORDER ON BAIL PETITION FILED
U/SEC. 438 OF CR.P.C.
This petition is filed seeking anticipatory bail against
the registration of Crime by Kodigehalli police against the
accused for the offence punishable under Sec.419, 420,
465, 468, 471, 504, 506 IPC.
2. The Petitioner submits that the complainant Sudhir
C.V and Bindu Sudhir has made false complaint before the
police. In fact the petitioner is absolute owner of the
residential
premises
site
No.54,
Kodigehalli
village
Panchayath khata No.469/54 measuring 30 X 40 feet which
has been purchased under registered sale deed from GPA
holder of one Chinnppa and registered sale deed dated
06.07.2022 vide document No.BYP­1­03555­2022­23 in
book I, C.D.No.BYPD1160 Dated 12.07.2022 in the office of
Senior Sub­Registrar, Byatarayanapura, Bengaluru.
3.

The petitioner submits though he is in physical
possession and enjoyment, just to give harassment and
trouble to the petitioner the com have approached the police
3
Crl.Misc. No.499/2023
and got threatening calls to the petitioner that he would be
arrested by any means.

4.

The petitioner submits, in the first week of
January 2023 the petitioner approached the city civil court
ad filed O.S.No.25040/2023. The City civil court at
Mayohall
injunction
has
satisfied
dated
to
grant
11.01.2023.

On
ex­parte
ad­interim
compliance
as
the
complainant came to know about the same they are trying
to lodge false complaint and trying to get petitioner arrested.

5. The petitioner submits he is ready to abide by any
of the conditions that may be imposed by this court. The
petitioner apprehending, police are frequently visiting his
house and working place and trying to make arrest of the
petitioner. The apprehension of petitioner is genuine. The
police may at the personal vengeance of persons names
though there is civil suit pending are trying to get arrest the
present petitioner. Petitioner submits by relying the citation
of Hon’ble Supreme Court of Indian in 2020 (5) SCC
Susheela Agarwal and others V/s State of Delhi and another
4
Crl.Misc. No.499/2023
and 1980(2) Supreme Court Cases 565 Gurubaksh Singh
Sibbia V/s State of Panjab and seeks anticipatory bail.

6. Learned PP has filed objections submitting there is
no reasonable ground to grant anticipatory bail. Since the
police have registered Cr.No.248/2022 dated 12.10.2022.
However the petitioner is not complainant­operating in spite
of service of notice. Therefore filling of anticipatory bail is to
be rejected.

7.

IO has made similar report in his CD that there is
already Crl.Misc.No.9412/2022 has been filed and in CCH­
66 anticipatory bail is obtained. However one B.N.Sundar
had given complaint in Crl.No.248/2022 as on 12.10.2022.
Therefore as the accused is not co­operating by following
bail condition he has come up with his false petition.

8. Heard the arguments of both sides and perused the
materials available on record.
9. The points that arise for my consideration are as
under:
5
Crl.Misc. No.499/2023
i.

Whether petitioner deserves for grant of
bail u/sec. 438 of Cr.P.C.?

ii.

What order?

10. My findings on the above points are as follows:
i. Point No.1:
In the affirmative.

ii. Point No.2:
As per final order
on the following
REASONS
11.

On going through the material on record the
learned counsel for the petitioner submits in the first week
of January 2023 the petitioner approached the city civil
court ad filed O.S.No.25040/2023. The City civil court at
Mayohall
has
satisfied
to
grant
ex­parte
ad­interim
injunction dated 11.01.2023. Therefore the Sudhir and
Bindu Sudhir are trying to arm twist the petitioner to
concede their demands are trying to make false complaint.
Since bail is a rule
and jail is exception. The Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India in Susheela Agarwal and others V/s
State (NTC Delhi and another) has held, when application
under Sec.438 of Cr.P.C. is filed, the court is to be satisfied
6
Crl.Misc. No.499/2023
that whether the petitioner is able to satisfy the court that
he is not going to violate bail conditions. Secondly the plea
made by the petitioner is subsequently and considering
circumstances of the each case, bail is to be granted or not.
Therefore in this case apprehension of the petitioner is
genuine. Moreover there is civil suit pending as such he
seeks anticipatory bail. Further relied on another citation
Sri.Gurubaksh Singh Sibbia V/s State of Panjab which is
on the similar footing.

12.

Learned PP submits as there is no crime
registered in the jurisdictional police.

In Cr.No.248/2022
has been registered on the basis of complaint made by one
Somashekar.

As
such
the
petitioner
has
obtained
anticipatory bail before CCH­66 in Crl.Misc.No.9412/2022
but has not co­operated with the IO in conclusion of
investigation. As such the present bail application is to be
rejected.

13. On going through the material on record, the non
co­operation in Cr.No.248/2022, definitely the IO having
7
Crl.Misc. No.499/2023
right to kept the bail granted by CCH­66. However that
cannot be a ground for rejection of petition filed by the
petitioner. Apprehending on the basis of allegation made by
one Sudhir and Bindhu Sudhir the presence of each cause
of action that may be arised are different. Therefore the
apprehension
of
the
anticipatory bail.

petitioner
is
enough
to
grant
Hence in my considered view the
petitioner deserves for grant of bail by exercising the powers
conferred u/sec. 438 of Cr.P.C. Accordingly this Point No.1
is in the affirmative.
14. Point No.2:
By considering the above over all
reasons this court proceed to pass the following;
ORDER
Bail petition filed u/sec. 438 of Cr.P.C. by the
Petitioner is allowed.
Petitioner is ordered to be released on
anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest in the
crime to be registered against them for the offence
punishable u/sec.420, 465, 468, 471, 504 and 506
of IPC on executing their personal bond for
Rs.50,000/­
bond amount and self surety of his
8
Crl.Misc. No.499/2023
own property/ close with one surety for the
likesum and cash surety of Rs. 5000/­ on the
following conditions.

1. The petitioner shall appear before IO within 10
days from the date of this order.

2. The
Petitioner
Prosecution
shall
not
witnesses
tamper
either
with
directly
the
or
indirectly in any manner.

3. He shall co­operate for investigation by the
concerned police and regularly appear before
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 involve in any kind of offence.
6. He shall not leave the jurisdiction of the court
without prior permission.
If any of the above conditions violates the IO is
at liberty to move for cancellation of bail.
(Dictated to the Stenographer on computer, script corrected, signed
and pronounced by me in open court on this the 27 th day of January,
2023)
(Rajesh Karnam. K)
69 Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bangalore.
th
9
Crl.Misc. No.499/2023