KABC010078482024 IN THE COURT OF THE LII ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE (CCH-53) Dated this the 27th day of March, 2024 PRESENT Sri.B.G.Pramoda, B.A.L., LL.B., LII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bangalore. Crl.Misc.No.2807 /2024 Petitioner: K.C.Nanda Kumar, S/o K.V.Chalapathy, Aged about 55 years, Permanently residing at #451, 11th Cross, Sadashivanagar, Bengaluru – 560080. (By Sri.Mahesh Raj – Advocate) -V/S- Respondent : State of Karnataka By Jnanabharathi police station, Bengaluru. (Represented by learned Public Prosecutor) 2 Crl.Misc.No.2807/2024

ORDER

This petition is filed by the petitioner u/Sec.438 of Cr.P.C., praying to grant anticipatory bail to him in the event of his arrest by respondent police in Crime No.61/2024 of Jnanabharathi police station for the offences punishable u/Sec.465, 468, 471, 420, 504, 506 r/w Sec.34 of IPC, pending on the file of learned 9th ACMM, Bengaluru.

2. It is stated in the petition that the respondent

police have registered the case in Crime No.61/2024 against the petitioner and another by alleging the offences punishable u/Sec.465, 468, 471, 420, 504, 506 r/w Sec.34 of IPC, on the basis of information given by one Kaushik A Makam. It is further stated in the petition that the petitioner is innocent and he has not committed any offences as alleged against him. The petitioner is permanent resident of address mentioned in the cause title. The respondent police are making hectic efforts to arrest the petitioner and the petitioner has got genuine apprehension of his arrest by the respondent police. The petitioner hails from a respectable family. The petitioner is ready to abide by any terms and conditions that may be imposed by the court for his enlargement on bail. The petitioner is ready and willing to offer surety to the satisfaction of the court. Hence, the petitioner has prayed to allow the petition. 3 Crl.Misc.No.2807/2024

3. The learned Public Prosecutor has filed the

objection to the petition along with I.O. report by opposing the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner on the ground that the offences alleged to have committed by the petitioners are grave in nature and against to society. It is further stated in the objection that the petitioner and other accused have got created documents with respect to the ancestral property of the informant with intention to cheat the informant and with intention make loss to him and the petitioner along with other accused are illegally trying to construct building in the property. When the informant has enquired the petitioner about the same, the petitioner along with other accused have abused the informant and gave life threat to him. It is further stated in the objection that the case is still at the investigation stage and if the petitioner is enlarged on bail he may hamper the investigation of the case and he may tried to destroy the evidence. The petitioner may threaten the informant and other prosecution witnesses. The petitioner may commit similar offences in future. It is further stated in the objections that if the petitioner is enlarged on bail, it would be difficult to secure his presence for investigation. Hence, the Learned Public Prosecutor has prayed to reject the petition filed by the petitioner. 4 Crl.Misc.No.2807/2024

4. Heard the arguments of Learned Public Prosecutor

and Learned counsel for the petitioner. Perused the petition, objection and other materials on record.

5. Having done so, the following points will arise for my

consideration: (1) Whether the petitioner has made out grounds for granting anticipatory bail u/s.438 of Cr.P.C.,? (2) What order?

6. My findings on the above points are as under:

(1) Point No.1 .. In the Affirmative (2) Point No.2 .. As per final order for the following: R E A S O N S

7. Point No.1:- The petitioner has filed the present

petition praying for grant of anticipatory bail to him in Crime No.61/2024 of Gnanabharathi police station, for the offences punishable u/Sec.465, 468, 471, 420, 504, 506 r/w Sec.34 of IPC, which is registered by the respondent police on the basis of the information given by one Koushik A. Makam, pending before the learned 9th ACMM, Bengaluru. The petitioner has produced certified copy of FIR, complaint and other documents. The petitioner is shown as accused No.4 in the FIR. 5 Crl.Misc.No.2807/2024

8. It is alleged in the FIR that the property bearing

site No.576, situated at KCHC Layout was purchased by the grandmother of the informant. The accused No.1 is the uncle of the informant. The accused No.2 is the son of Accused No.1. After the death of grandmother of the informant in the year 2002, they have tried to sold the property during 2014- 15 and accused No.1 was not ready to sell the property as the sale consideration amount not satisfactorily. On 01.12.2023, when the informant went to see the site. He has noticed the construction of three storied building in the said site. He has enquired accused No.1 and 2 about the construction. Initially the accused No.1 and 2 have agreed to give share in the said property to all the family members. But later they have abused the informant with filthy language and told that they have got all the documents of the property in their name and threatened to take the life of the informant if he again came near the property. On enquiry of the documents pertaining to the property, the informant came to know that the accused No.1 has got created one Will deed dated 04.04.2000 alleged to have been executed by his grandmother and got it registered on 16.09.2019 in the Sub- Registrar Office, Jayanagar by colluding with other accused and thereby cheated him. 6 Crl.Misc.No.2807/2024

9. The offences alleged against the petitioner are

non-bailable in nature. Since FIR is registered by alleging the commission of non-bailable offences and since complaint is filed by alleging the commission of non-bailable offences, the petitioner has filed the present petition under the apprehension of his arrest by the respondent police. It is the apprehension of the petitioner that the respondent police after registering the case against him are making hectic efforts to arrest him and he has got apprehension of his arrest by the respondent police. Since alleged offences are non-bailable in nature, there is possibility of arrest of the petitioner by the respondent police during the course of investigation of the case. If the petitioner is arrested by the respondent police without holding proper enquiry and without following the guidelines of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Arnesh Kumar’s case, the petitioner will be put to unnecessary hardship and humiliation.

10. The offences alleged against the petitioner are

not exclusively punishable with death or imprisonment for life. The alleged offences are triable by the Learned Magistrate. The investigation of the allegations made in the complaint is mainly depending upon documentary evidence. Custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required for further investigation of the case. If the accused No.1 and 2 have not 7 Crl.Misc.No.2807/2024 given any share to the informant in the property of his grandmother, the informant has got civil remedy for seeking partition in the said property. Whether the Will deed in the name of accused No.1 is created or not and whether the petitioner and other accused have cheated the informant in the manner as alleged in the information or not has to be adjudicated only after full-fledged trial. The petitioner is only an attesting witness to the Will deed.

11. The petitioner has contended that he is ready

and willing to abide by any terms and conditions that may be imposed by the court for his enlargement on bail. Further he is ready to offer surety to the satisfaction of the court for his appearance before the Investigating Officer. The petitioner is permanent residents of Bengaluru. Copy of his Adhaar Card is produced. The presence of the petitioner during the course of investigation of the case can be secured by imposing suitable terms and conditions. Further the accused No.1 and 2 against whom similar offences are alleged are granted anticipatory bail today as per order in Crl.Misc.No.2469/2024. The apprehension of Learned Public Prosecutor can be make good by imposing suitable terms and conditions. Since the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required for further investigation of the case and since the offences alleged against the petitioner are triable by learned 8 Crl.Misc.No.2807/2024 magistrate and since the petitioner has got apprehension of arrest of his arrest and the petitioner is ready and willing to abide by any terms and conditions imposed by the court for his enlargement on bail and the petitioner is ready to furnish surety to the satisfaction of the court, I am of the opinion that anticipatory bail as prayed for by the petitioner can be granted by imposing suitable terms and conditions. As such, the petition filed by the petitioner is deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, I answer the above point in the Affirmative

12. Point No.2:- In view of my findings on point No.1, I

proceed to pass the following: O R D E R The petition filed by the petitioner/accused No.4 u/s.438 of Cr.P.C., is hereby allowed. The respondent police shall release the petitioner/ accused No.4 on bail in the event of his arrest in Crime No.61/2024 of Gnanabharathi police station, for the offences punishable u/Sec.465, 468, 471, 420, 504, 506 r/w Sec.34 of IPC, pending on the file of 9th ACMM Court, Bangalore, on petitioner executing personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with one surety for likesum to the satisfaction of the Learned Magistrate on the following further conditions:- CONDITIONS (1) The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer within the period of two weeks from the date of 9 Crl.Misc.No.2807/2024 this order and he shall furnish all necessary information to the I.O as required. (2) The petitioner shall appear before the I.O. as and when called for during the course of investigation of the case and he shall co-operate with the investigation of the case. (3) The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or any police officer or any hamper with the evidence. (4) The petitioner shall not leave India without prior permission of the learned jurisdictional Magistrate. (5) The petitioner shall not commit any offences of similar or any other offences in future. (6) Violation of any of the aforesaid terms and conditions would entitle for cancellation of bail of the petitioner. (Dictated to the Stenographer directly on computer, corrected and then pronounced by me in the open court on this the 27th day of March, 2024). (B.G.Pramoda) LII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru. 10 Crl.Misc.No.2807/2024