KABC010016942023
IN THE COURT OF THE LXIII ADDL.CITY CIVIL &
SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH-64) AT BENGALURU
Dated this the 30th day of January 2023
: PRESENT :
Sri.A.V.Patil, B.Com., LL.B.,
LXIII ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS
JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY.
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS NO.536/2023
PETITIONER
Umesh Gurjar
S/o Late.Sakharam,
Aged about 50 years,
Residing at No.179,
2nd Floor, Parmjyothi,
5th Main, Nrupathunga Nagar,
J.P.Nagar, 7th Phase,
Bengaluru – 78.

:
(By Sri.Lokesh M.Y., Advocate)
– Vs RESPONDENT
:
State by Kumaraswamy Layout
Police Station, Bengaluru.
(By Public Prosecutor)
2
Crl.Misc.No.536/2023
ORDER
The petitioner has filed this petition u/s 438 of
Cr.P.C., for release on bail in the event of his arrest in
connection with a case registered in Cr.No.362/2022 of
respondent Police Station for the offences punishable
u/s 406, 419, 420, 463, 464, 468, 120(A) of IPC.
2.

It is stated in the bail application that the
petitioner is innocent and has not committed any
offences as alleged in the complaint. He is working as a
Tax Consultant. The alleged offences are based on the
documentary evidence. The petitioner and accused No.3
are known to each other since 2019. The complainant
came to contact with the petitioner through one of the
common friend. The accused No.3 is the landlord
having properties in and around Sarjapura. The
accused No.3 requested the petitioner to sell two villa
and two flats and also requested to get loan from the
Bank. Since the petitioner is also into the business of
brokerage between the Bank and the customers, on the
request of the accused No.3, in the
month of April-
2019 introduced 4 prospective buyers to sell his two
villa and two flats. On the request of accused No.3, the
petitioner helped the buyers and also to the accused
3
Crl.Misc.No.536/2023
No.3 to get loan from the Bank, for that the petitioner
has received commission from the accused No.3. After
the sanction loan, the accused No.3 had executed
registered Sale Deeds in respect of two villa and two
flats with the prospective purchasers. Since from the
date of execution of Sale Deed, there is no contact with
the accused No.3 and other prospective purchasers.
The petitioner was acting as a middleman between the
Bank and the purchaser. Except that there is no any
transaction with anybody in the alleged creation of IT
Returns documents. The alleged offences are based on
the documentary evidence. The offences alleged against
the petitioner are not punishable either with death or
imprisonment for life and are triable by the Court of
Magistrate.

He is ready and willing to abide by the
terms and conditions imposed while releasing him on
bail. In view of registering of FIR, he apprehends his
arrest. Hence, prayed to grant anticipatory bail.
3.

The learned P.P. has opposed the bail application
by filing the objections statement. According to him, the
materials collected during the investigation prima-facie
disclose that the petitioner has committed the offence
alleged against him. Hence, prayed to dismiss the bail
4
Crl.Misc.No.536/2023
petition filed by the petitioner.
4.

Heard the arguments from learned Counsel for
petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the
materials placed on record.
5.

The points that arise for my consideration are:
1. Whether the petitioner is entitled for
anticipatory bail as prayed in the
application filed under Sec.438 of Cr.P.C.?
2. What order?

6.

My answer to the above points are as follows:
Point No.1: In the affirmative
Point No.2: As per final order for the following;
REASONS
7.

Point No.1:- The Chief Manager Sri.P.V.Sambasiva
Rao P.V., Karur Vysya Bank Ltd., lodged the complaint
against the accused No.1 to 5, alleging that accused
No.1 is the borrower, accused No.2 is the guarantor,
accused No.5/petitioner is a Tax consultant. Accused
No.1 is carrying a business as a Proprietor of
M/s
Nigmetha Info Tech and has all eligibility to borrow the
loan from the complainant Bank.

The accused No.1
represented that he intends to purchase the residential
flat bearing No.180/29B, also known as Unit No.1.

5
Crl.Misc.No.536/2023
with basement, ground, first and second floor, situated
at S.Madahalli, Handenahalli village, Sarjapura Hobli,
Anekal Taluk, Bengaluru Urban District and negotiated
for purchase of residential flat for Rs.1,80,88,000/- and
sought loan from the complainant Bank to the tune of
Rs.1,44,00,000/-. Along with the loan application, has
also filed copy of Income Tax Returns, Title Deeds etc.
After verification, sanctioned the loan in the year 201920.

The
said
loan
account
became
NPA
as
on
23.03.2021. Thereafter, the complainant came to know
that accused No.1 and 2 have produced false and
created IT documents to the complainant only for the
purpose of obtaining the loan. Accused No.1 to 5
conspired together to do an illegal act to induce the
complainant Bank to sanction a huge loan amount of
Rs.1,44,00,000/-, for which accused No.1 is not eligible.
Accused No.1 has furnished fabricated the Income Tax
Returns to the complainant Bank. The petitioner/
Accused No.5 is aware of the said fact and in order to
defraud and cheat the complainant Bank produced
fabricated IT Returns, the other related documents to
the complainant Bank. According to the complainant,
the accused have committed the criminal breach of
6
Crl.Misc.No.536/2023
trust, cheating and filing false and created documents
in
order
to
cheat
the
complainant.

complainant filed the complaint.

Hence,
the
On the basis of the
complaint, the FIR was registered against the accused
persons for the aforesaid offences.
8.

At the outset it is material to note that though
offences punishable u/s 406, 420, 468 of IPC are non
bailable in nature, are not punishable with death or life
imprisonment. After verification of all the documents
the
bank
officials
sanctioned
the
loan
but
no
complainant is filed. The involvement of petitioner is yet
to be proved. The case of the complainant is based on
documentary evidence. The truth is to be ascertained
during the course of trial. There is in ordinate delay in
filing of complaint. Moreover, the offences alleged
against the petitioner are triable by Court of Magistrate.
The petitioner is ready to furnish surety and ready to
abide by the conditions that may be imposed by this
Court while passing the order. As per the averments of
bail application, the petitioner is the permanent
resident of the address shown in the petition. The
offences alleged against the petitioner are cognizable
offences and as per the provisions of Cr.P.C. the I.O.

7
may
arrest
the
petitioner
Crl.Misc.No.536/2023
without
warrant.

The
apprehension of the prosecution can be taken care of by
putting suitable conditions. Having regards to the facts
and circumstances of the case, gravity of the offences
alleged, punishment prescribed for them, petitioner is
the permanent resident of Bengaluru and apprehension
of the arrest of the petitioner by the I.O. in the
considered opinion of this Court the petitioners are
entitled
to
grant
anticipatory
bail
by
imposing
appropriate conditions. Accordingly, I answer this point
in the affirmative.
9.

Point No.2:- In view of my findings on Point No.1,
I proceed to pass the following;
ORDER
The bail petition filed by petitioner u/s 438 of
Cr.P.C is hereby allowed and anticipatory bail is
granted.
In the event of his arrest by the I.O. in Crime
No.362/2022 of Kumaraswamy Layout Police
Station, is directed to enlarge him on bail on
executing his personal bond for Rs.70,000/- with
one surety for like sum subject to following
8
Crl.Misc.No.536/2023
conditions:
1. Petitioner shall appear before the respondent
Police within 20 days from the date of this
order.
2. Petitioner shall not tamper with
prosecution witnesses in any manner.

the
3. Petitioner shall appear before the Court
during trial and co-operate for the disposal
of the case.
4. Petitioner shall not commit similar to the
offence alleged against him.
5. Petitioner shall appear before the I.O. as and
when called for investigation.
6. Petitioner shall furnish the attested copy of
his respective Adhaar card and present
residential address proof to the I.O.
Notwithstanding
this
order
of
anticipatory bail do not in any manner limit
or restrict the rights and duties of the police
or investigating agency, to investigate into
the charges against the petitioner.
(Dictated to the Judgment Writer directly on Computer, typed by
her, taken print out, corrected by me and then pronounced in the
open Court on this the 30th day of January 2023)
(A.V.PATIL)
LXIII Addl. City Civil and Sessions
Judge (CCH-64), Bengaluru City.