Crl.Misc.No.3161/2024
1
KABC010089212024
IN THE COURT OF THE LVI ADDL. CITY CIVIL &
SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU (CCH 57)
:Present :
Sri.T.Govindaiah, B.Com., LLB.,
LVI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru.
Dated this the 05th Day of April, 2024.
Crl.Misc.No.3161/2024
PETITIONERS 1.
Mr.Vignesh B
S/o Sridharan R
Aged about 34 years
R/at No.13, Singaram nagar
Mannivakkam
Chennai
(By Sri.M.Abdul Salam Adv)
V/s
RESPONDENT
1
State of Karnataka
By: Subramanyapura
Police Station,
Bengaluru.
(Rep. by: Public Prosecutor)
Crl.Misc.No.3161/2024
2
ORDER
This petition is filed by the petitioner under Section
438 of Cr.P.C. for bail in the event of his arrest in Crime
No.37/2024 for the offences punishable under Section
420 of IPC and Sec.66(C) and 66(D) of Information
Technology Act, 2000 of respondent police pending on the
file
of
XLV
Addl.
Chief
Metropolitan
Magistrate,
Bengaluru.
2.
The petitioner has sought for anticipatory bail
on the ground that, he is the only breadwinner of the
family. He has aged parents. He has no bad antecedents.
He is ready to abide by the conditions that may be
imposed.
3. The prosecution has filed statement of objections
narrating the facts of the case. Further prima facie the
prosecution papers discloses the involvement of the
petitioner in cheating. If the petitioner is enlarged on
anticipatory bail he may abscond and may not appear for
Crl.Misc.No.3161/2024
3
investigation.
He
may
not
cooperate
with
the
investigation. No grounds are made out for grant of
anticipatory bail. He would tamper with the evidence and
witnesses. He may threaten the witness and interfere in
the investigation. Hence sought for dismissal of the
petition.
4.
Heard arguments.
5.
The points that arise for my consideration are:
1. Whether the petitioner is entitled for
anticipatory bail as provided under
Section 438 of Cr.P.C.?
2. What order?
6.
My findings on 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: It is alleged against the petitioner
that, the petitioner offered the complainant for job in
Crl.Misc.No.3161/2024
4
foreign.
Further
the
petitioner
also
called
the
complainant to hotel Gokul veg at Padmanab nagar,
Bengaluru. In the negotiation the petitioner offered the
complainant to invest more money in his firm. Further
the petitioner
informed the complainant that he will
provide more profit as he is chief in Bengaluru branch.
He also informed that, if more people will called by you,
you will get more profit. The petitioner also informed the
complainant
about earning
of more interest. After
receiving the investment total amount of Rs.6,28,609/,
the petitioner fails to pay any dividend or interest. The
petitioner intentionally committed breach of trust and he
also committed offence under Sec.66(D) and 66(C) of IT
Act. The petitioner intentionally collected the money from
the complainant and fails to pay interest or dividend.
Accordingly the petitioner has committed the offence
under Sec.420 of IPC and sec.66(D) and 66(C) of IT Act.
5
8.
Crl.Misc.No.3161/2024
As could be seen from the prosecution papers
what is the exact nature of role played by the petitioner
in the said illegal transfer of money is not forthcoming.
However whether the petitioner has any role in the said
illegal transfer of money is a matter of investigation.
Without there being any specific allegations against the
petitioner, it appears that the petitioner could be granted
relief claimed by him with conditions. The apprehension
of the prosecution could be met out by imposing
conditions.
9. The petitioner has undertaken to furnish surety
and to abide by the conditions that may be imposed.
Further the petitioner is permanent resident of the
address shown in the cause title. If the petitioner is not
granted the relief it would cause harm to their reputation
and liberty of the petitioner.
6
Crl.Misc.No.3161/2024
10. In the decision reported in Bhadresh Bipinbhai
Sheth V/s State of Gujarat and another (2016) 1 SCC
152 it is held by the Supreme Court of India that “there
is no justification for reading into Sec.438 of Cr.P.C. the
limitations mentioned in Sec.437 of Cr.P.C. The plenitude
of Sec.438 must be given its full play. There is no
requirement that the accused must make out a special
case for the exercise of the power to grant anticipatory
bail. This virtually, reduces the salutary power conferred
by Sec.438 of Cr.P.C. to a dead letter. A person seeking
anticipatory bail is still a free man entitled to the
presumption of innocence. He is willing to submit to
restraint and conditions on his freedom, by the acceptance
of conditions which the court may deem fit to impose, in
consideration of the assurance that if arrested, he shall be
enlarged on bail”.
Crl.Misc.No.3161/2024
7
11. In view of the ratio above since the petitioner
apprehends arrest at the hands of respondent, it would
be appropriate to grant the relief claimed in the petition.
Hence, point No.1 answered in the Affirmative.
12. Point No.2:
In view of my findings on point
No.1, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
The petition filed by the petitioner under
Section 438 of Cr.P.C., is hereby allowed.
The petitioner is ordered to be released on
bail
in
the
event
of
his
arrest
in
Cr.
No.37/2024 for the offences punishable under
Sections 420 of IPC and Sec.66(C) and 66(D) of
Information
Technology
Act,
2000
of
respondent police pending on the file of XLV
Addl.
Chief
Metropolitan
Magistrate,
Bengaluru to following conditions:
1. The petitioner shall execute personal
bond for Rs.1,00,000/ and shall
furnish two sureties for like sum of trial
court.
8
Crl.Misc.No.3161/2024
2. The petitioner shall appear before the
concerned court and shall move regular
bail application within 15 days from the
date of this order.
3. The petitioner shall appear before the
respondent police as and when call for
and cooperate with the investigation.
4. The petitioner shall not
jurisdiction of Bengaluru.
leave
the
5. The petitioner shall not commit similar
nature of offence in future.
6. The petitioner shall produce
residential address proof.
his
If violation of any conditions will
amounts
to
cancellation
of
bail
automatically.
(Dictated to the Stenographer directly on computer, then corrected
and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 5th Day of April, 2024)
(T.Govindaiah)
LVI Addl.City Civil & Sessions
Judge, Bengaluru.
9
Crl.Misc.No.3161/2024
10
Crl.Misc.No.3161/2024
Order pronounced in open Court
(Vide separate order)
ORDER
The petition filed by the
petitioner under Section 438 of
Cr.P.C., is hereby allowed.
The petitioner is ordered to be
released on bail in the event of
his arrest in Cr. No.37/2024 for
the offences punishable under
Sections 420 of IPC and Sec.66(C)
11
Crl.Misc.No.3161/2024
and
66(D)
of
Information
Technology
Act,
2000
of
respondent police pending on the
file
of
XLV
Addl.
Chief
Metropolitan
Magistrate,
Bengaluru
to
following
conditions:
1.
The petitioner shall execute
personal bond for Rs.1,00,000/
and shall furnish two sureties for
like sum of trial court.
2. The petitioner shall appear
before the concerned court and
shall
move
regular
bail
application within 15 days from
the date of this order.
3.
The petitioner shall appear
before the respondent police as
and when call for and cooperate
with the investigation.
4. The petitioner shall not leave
the jurisdiction of Bengaluru.
5.
The petitioner shall not
commit similar nature of offence
in future.
6. The petitioner shall produce
his residential address proof.
If violation of any conditions
will amounts to cancellation of
bail automatically.
LVI Addl.City Civil & Sessions
Judge, Bengaluru.
12
Crl.Misc.No.3161/2024