Crl. Misc. No.2880/2024 KABC010081032024 IN THE COURT OF THE LXI ADDL. CITY CIVIL, SESSIONS JUDGE: BENGALURU CITY Dated this the 01 st day of April, 2024 -: PRESENT :- SMT.NISHARANI A.C., B.A., LL.B., III ACC & SJ, Bengaluru C/C LXI ACC & SJ Bangalore, (CCH-62) CRL. MISC. No.2880/2024 Petitioner/s : 1. Dinesh Kumar.V S/o.Vijaya Kumar.K Aged about 36 years (Accused No.3)

2. Praveen Kumar.V S/o.Vijaya Kumar.K Aged about 32 years

(Accused No.4) Both are R/a.No.42/A, 2nd Floor, 31 A Cross 7th Block, NSVK BIA School Jayanagara, Jayanagara 4th Block Bengaluru-560 011. Crl. Misc. No.2880/2024 (By Sri.Vinod.V, Adv.) V/s. Respondent : The State by Banashankari 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.-153/2020 now in C.C. No.30896/2021, which is registered by the Banashankari Police Station, Bengaluru alleging that petitioners have committed the offences punishable under Section 406, 408, 420, 380 & 411 of IPC.

2. The petitioners contents that they are innocent of the

alleged offences and they have been falsely implicated in the instant case and petitioners are brothers and are running business in the name and style as 'Sri Tyre Zone' Bengaluru and they are nothing to do with the case and investigation has been completed by the respondent police and charge sheet is filed and co-accused No.2 & 3 have been granted bail by this court in Crl. No.7039/2020 and 9667/2020 and Crl. Misc. No.2880/2024 hence on parity grounds petitioners are also entitled for bail and the alleged offences are not punishable with death or imprisonment for life and petitioners have no bad antecedents and they hails from respectable middle class family having strong roots in the society and they are permanent residents of the address as shown in the cause title of the petition and they are law abiding citizens & they are ready and willing to abide by the conditions that may be imposed by the court and they are also ready to offer solvent surety to the satisfaction of the court for their release on bail, hence they are entitled for bail.

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 charge sheet and other materials placed on record primafacie 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 and 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; Crl. Misc. No.2880/2024 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?

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 Affirmative with conditions Point No.2 – As per final Order, for the following; R E A S O N S

7. Point No.1:- On perusal of the FIR, complaint &

charge sheet it is alleged that the complainant is the Section Manager of Yokohama India Pvt. Ltd., working at the warehouse situated at 158/1, BSK II Stage, Bengaluru and he was also the in-charge of the Stock Management for the South Zone & as per the routine procedure and norms on 07.10.2020 complainant along with his staff members along with accused No.1& 2 wee checking the stock of the tyres which were stored in warehouse and while verifying they Crl. Misc. No.2880/2024 found shortage of 236 tyres and there were 180 tyres of varying size which were invoiced towards some of the dealers without any proper intend or demand and the said stock and product is valued approximately between Rs.35 Lakhs to Rs.40 lakhs and the key of the ware house was with the Senior Executive Naveen/accused No.1 and Assisted by the office by Kolalappan/accused No.2 and on enquiry the accused No.1 had admitted misappropriation of 335 tyres and and falsely invoiced 180 tyres of varying seize without proper intend or demand from the dealers & also sold some tyres to third parties and thereby committed the alleged offences punishable under section 406, 408, 420, 380, 411 of IPC.

8. Now, it is the contention of the petitioners that they

are innocent of the alleged offences and they have not committed any offences as alleges and since the investigation has been completed and charge sheet is filed they are no more required for any further investigation & they are ready to abide by the terms and conditions that may be imposed by the court.

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 Crl. Misc. No.2880/2024 do no hold any water as the cause title of the petition & the Aadhar card of the petitioners one produced by them shows that they are permanent resident of Bengaluru and their presence can be easily secured before the court & I.O.

10. I am aware that this Court cannot and is not

supposed to sift 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 petitioner is 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 alleged offences are not at

all punishable with death or life imprisonment and since the co-accused have already been granted bail by this court & since charge sheet has already been filed and since the alleged offences against the petitioners has to be decided through a thorough trial and since the apprehension of the prosecution could be met by imposing stringent conditions then looking into the nature and gravity of the alleged offences, I am of the considered opinion that the petitioners have made out a prima-facie case for grant of bail subject to conditions and accordingly, I have answered the above point Crl. Misc. No.2880/2024 No.1 in affirmative.

12. Point No.2 :- In view of the discussion made on

point No.1 and further holding it in the affirmative, I proceed to pass the following:- O R D E R The anticipatory bail petition filed by the petitioners u/s 438 of Cr.P.C., is hereby allowed subject to following conditions;

1. That in the event of arrest of

the petitioners in C.C. No.30896/2021 (Cr. No.153/2020) of respondent Police they shall be released on bail on executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- each with one surety for each petitioner for the like sum amount.

2. That the petitioners shall not

hold any threat to the complainant and shall not tamper with any of the prosecution witnesses directly or indirectly. Crl. Misc. No.2880/2024

3. That the petitioners shall

furnish their residential address proof and that of their surety.

4. That the petitioners shall not

indulge in similar type of offences in future.

5. That the petitioners shall

appear before the trail court regularly without fail on receipt of the summons.

6. That if the petitioners fails to

obey any of the above said conditions, then this bail order automatically stands cancelled. (Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and typed by her, corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 01st day of April, 2024). (NISHARANI A.C) C/C LXI ACC & SJ, B’luru