KABC010078752024 IN THE COURT OF LXVII ADDL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY (CCH.No.68) PRESENT SRI. KASHIM CHURIKHAN, B.A., LL.M. LXVII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru. Dated this the 3rd day of April 2024 Crl.Misc.No. 2980 /2024 Petitioners: 1. Kiran Barker, S/o L.B. Bariker, Aged about 35 years, R/at No.2354, 23rd ‘A’ Cross, Saharanagar, Bengaluru – 92.

2. Irfan Nagnoor, S/o Dr. Ibrahim Nagnoor, Aged about 34 years, R/at No.401, Majestic Residency, Tavrekere Main Road, Bengaluru South29.

(By Sri. T.A, Adv.) -Vs- Respondent: State by HSR Layout Police, Bengaluru. (By learned PP) ORDER ON BAIL PETITION The petitioners have filed bail petition u/s.438 of Cr.P.C., sought for the anticipatory bail in event of their 2 Crl.Misc.No.2980/2024 arrest in Cr.No.108/2024 of the respondentHSR Layout Police Station, Bengaluru registered for the offences punishable u/s.420 r/w Sec.34 of IPC, pending on the file of learned 39th A.C.M.M, Bengaluru.

2. The brief facts of the case are as under:

The informant has lodged the report to the Police stating that he was running Techno Hangout Club at Bengaluru. His friend Pratheek introduced the accused to him and they agreed to run his club and to pay the rent to the building owner and also agreed to pay 20% income gained from the club. Thereafter they failed to pay the rent to the owner of the building for continuous 4 months, which amounting to Rs.11 lakh. Therefore, the building owner has deducted arrears of rent from the advance amount paid by the informant. Further it is alleged that the accused failed to return the due amount even after taking much time and thus they cheated the informant.

3. In the bail petition, the petitioners being accused

No.1 and 2 have contended that they are totally innocent of all the alleged allegations. They have been residing in Bengaluru for above 30 years. They are providing services related hospitality and entertainment in Bengaluru. The complainant instigated a criminal complaint, which is inherently civil in nature. The alleged agreement was only for two months, but the informant ceased rent for 4 months. The alleged 3 Crl.Misc.No.2980/2024 offences are not punishable with imprisonment for life or death. The petitioners are ready and willing to abide the terms and conditions those going to be imposed by this Court and ready to offer surety to the satisfaction of the Court, if anticipatory bail is granted. Hence, sought for allowing the bail petition.

4. The learned Public Prosecutor has filed objections

and contended that the investigation is not yet completed. There are prima-facie materials as to the commission of alleged offences. The petitioners have not assigned any genuine reasons for granting bail. The petitioners are absconding from the date of commission of alleged offences. At this stage, if the petitioners are enlarged on anticipatory bail, they may threaten the prosecution witnesses, destroy the prosecution evidence and hamper the investigation by fleeing away from justice. Hence, sought for rejection of the bail petition.

5. Heard.

6. The points raised for determination are as under:

1. Whether the petitioners have made out sufficient grounds to enlarge them on bail?

2. What Order?

7. My findings to the above points are as under:

Point No.1: Affirmative, Point No.2: As per the final order, for the following: 4 Crl.Misc.No.2980/2024 R E A S O N S

8. Point No.1: The case of the prosecution is that

with the accused have made agreement with the informant assuring to pay the rent of the club building and 20% income gained from the club. But they cheated the informant by not paying rent for 4 months. The same has been denied by the learned counsel for petitioners.

9. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the

petitioners that there is civil dispute between the parties and a suit is pending. They are not at all connected to rent deed between the informant and owner of the building. They have entered in to only lease agreement. False case has been registered against the petitioners. Hence, the learned counsel prays to allow the bail petition.

10. The learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that

the petitioners have not denied the transaction between them and informant. The petitioners have not made out any ground for grant of anticipatory bail to them. Therefore, prays to dismiss the bail petition.

11. The alleged facts are all to be proved in full-

fledged trial with authenticated testimony of the prosecution witnesses. That apart, securing the accused for the purpose of investigation and trial are the criteria 5 Crl.Misc.No.2980/2024 to grant bail. Hence, the involvement of the petitioners in the commission of alleged offences is to be proved in the course of trial. The offences alleged against the petitioners are not punishable with either death or imprisonment for life. The apprehension of the petitioners as to likelihood of their arrest by the respondent Police is well founded. The petitioner No.1 is senior citizen. The petitioners have undertaken to abide the bail conditions and ready to furnish surety for their due appearance before the Court. The apprehension of prosecution could be dealt with by imposing some conditions. Accordingly, I answer the Point No.1 in the affirmative.

12. P oint No.2 : In view of my findings on Point No.1

as above, I proceed to pass the following: O R D E R The bail petition filed by the petitioners u/s.438 of Cr.P.C, is allowed, subject to the following conditions:

1. The petitioners are ordered to be released on bail in the event of their arrest in Cr.No.108/2024 of the respondentHSR Layout Police Station, Bengaluru on executing their personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- each along with one surety for like sum;

2. The petitioners shall appear before the Investigating Officer within 15 days from the date of this order and to assist him in investigation as and when required; 6 Crl.Misc.No.2980/2024

3. The petitioners shall appear before the trial Court on all the hearing dates;

4. The petitioners shall not tamper with the prosecution witnesses;

5. The petitioners shall not indulge in committing any offences.

(Dictated to the Stenographer Grade-I directly on computer, corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in the open court on this the 3rd day of April 2024) (Kashim Churikhan) LXVII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru. Digitally signed by KASHIM KASHIM MOHADDINSAHEB MOHADDINSAHEB CHURIKHAN CHURIKHAN Date: 2024.04.16 12:58:32 +0530