KABC010078442024 IN THE COURT OF LXV ADDL CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY (CCH-66) PRESENT SHRI. HEMANTH KUMAR. C.R , B.A.L., L.L.B., LXV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru. Dated this the 25 th day of March, 2024 Crl.Misc.No.2806/2024 PETITIONER/S:- LOKANATH. M.G, s/o late R.Gangadharasa, Aged about 62 years, R/at No.8/15, 1st Main Road, Okalipuram, Bengaluru North, Bengaluru -560021. (By Sri. SBR., Advocate) V/s. RESPONDENT:- STATE OF KARNATAKA, By Vidhana Soudha Police Station, Bengaluru City. (Rep. by Public Prosecutor) * * * * ORDER ON BAIL PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION 438 OF CR.P.C This petition is filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C., seeking anticipatory bail to the petitioner in Crime No.89/2023 registered by the 2 Crl.Misc.No.2806/2024 Vidhana Soudha police for the offences punishable under Sections 465, 468, 473 r/w Section 34 of IPC.

2. Facts of the case are as follows.-

The complainant has filed a private complaint before the jurisdictional Magistrate in PCR No.10590/2023 alleging that one Smt.Nagarathnamma had purchased a residential plot No.1181/L, 3rd Cross, Avalahalli 30 feet Main Road, Raghavendra Block, Gavipura, Bengaluru and she was married to one Ashwathnarayana Setty and having four sons and daughters. It is further alleged that the son of Smt.Nagarathnamma, late P.A.Sathyanarayana Gupta was doing business of selling coffee, cosmetics, milk, real estate and other and he was died on 22.08.1995 at his residence and Smt.Gajalakshmamma and Sri.Ananda Krishna Murthy expired in the year 1992 and 1997 respectively. After the death of P.A.Sathyanarayana Gupta, had no one to support his wife financially and as her children were minors. The property remained in the physical possession of Smt.Chandrakala since then. Due to some family differences in the year 2012, a civil suit for partition in OS.No.7838/2012 was filed against the other members seeking shares and later due to the intervention of all the elders and well wishers they came into compromise and all the defendants had given up their rights in the said property in favour of her husband N.S.Anandthe complainant herein. Later the complainant developed some doubts in his mind and went to the Chamarajpet Sub-Registrar office and made inquiries and later he came to know that an unknown sale deed bearing No.1064, Book-I, Volume-1828, pages 52 to 55 dated 16.07.1993 was registered and according to the said sale deed late P.A.Sathyanarayana Gupta had allegedly sold the property to the accused No.3-Lokanath and later he enquired his mother-in-law 3 Crl.Misc.No.2806/2024 Smt.Chandrakala, but had no support and there was no partition of the ownership of the property amongst the legal heirs of late Smt.Nagarathnamma. The complainant has further alleged that the accused No.3 has committed the offence of forgery with the help of clerks in Sub-Registrar office and later in the year 2001 the said Lokanath, the rowdy was arrested by the Sanjaynagara police along with Jedaralli Krishnappa in SC.No81/2002, the accused No.3 to escape from that criminal case he sold the property to accused No.1 and his Benamidar A.Prasanna Kumar. The accused No.1 and 2 got the same registered by changing the site No.19 to site No.19/10, illegally without any BBMP order. The complainant in the year 2018 when tried to construct in the said property, on 03.04.2018 the accused No.1Mohan and accused No.2-Prasanna Kumar came to the said property and made ruckus, with regard to the same a Writ Petition No.13533/2018 has been filed before the Hon'ble High court of Karnataka and in the said proceedings the accused No.1-Mohan and accused No.2-Prasanna Kumar has been contesting, an affidavit was created on 06.07.1993 has been produced before the Hon'ble High court of Karnataka on 25.10.2018, in the said affidavit there is false mention that the complainant's property have been partitioned, the accused No.1, 2 and 3 -M.G. Lokanath together on the said affidavit have got it notarized, sealed and signed by one Sri.Saklesh Aradya, when the matter is pending before the Hon'ble High court of Karnataka to take necessary and appropriate legal action against the persons, for creating the affidavit, notary seal and signature. On 05.03.2018, when the complainant went to the office to his shock and surprise found that his office building and compound were demolished by the said Prasanna Kumar and they had stolen away the table, chairs, files, books and bank documents and other things. As such the complainant 4 Crl.Misc.No.2806/2024 approached the jurisdictional police. When the said police refused to register the complaint, the complainant has approached the jurisdictional Magistrate and filed the present complaint. Alleging the same the complainant has lodged the complaint. The said complaint having been referred for investigation and on receipt of the said complaint the police have registered the case in Crime No.89/2023 for the offences punishable under Sections 465, 468, 473 r/w Section 34 of IPC.

3. The petitioner being aggrieved by the same, has preferred

this bail petition on the following among other grounds. The petitioner submits that the registration of the present FIR for the alleged offences under Sections 465, 468, 473 r/w Section 34 of IPC was registered by the complainant who is a law practitioner as stated in the FIR, the primary and only allegation that can be seen on the face of the complaint is that an affidavit dated 06.07.1993 which has been produced by the accused No.1 and 2 before the Hon'ble High court of Karnataka on 25.10.2018. The petitioner submits that the complainant based on the imaginary story built up a false acquisitions and has blamed that the petitioner had done the act of tearing the paper in the government records in the year 1995-96. The petitioner submits that the case revolves purely on the civil dispute but to create hardship and loss to the petitioner, the complainant has implicated him with a concocted story. The petitioner submits that the petitioner had purchased the said property as alleged by the complainant in the year 1993-94 by one Sathyanarayana Gupta who is none other than the family member of the complainant and the son of one A.Nagarathnamma. The petitioner submits that he has sold the said property and has no relation to the allegations that has been made against him. The petitioner submits that he is innocent of the alleged 5 Crl.Misc.No.2806/2024 offences and he hails from respectable family and having deep roots in the society and also he is ready and willing to abide by the terms and conditions imposed by this court and also co-operate with the investigation. Hence, prays to allow the bail petition.

4. After service of notice, the learned Public Prosecutor has

appeared and filed objections contending that the offences alleged against the petitioner are grievous in nature and also has further contended that the the complaint averments prima facie shows that the petitioner and others are involved in the alleged offences. The learned Public Prosecutor has further contended that the investigation is still in pending at this stage if the bail petition of the petitioner is allowed there is every chances of petitioner threatening the prosecution witnesses, destroy the evidence, abscond and hamper the trial. Hence, prays to reject the bail petition.

5. Heard the arguments. Now the points that arise for my

consideration.-

1. Whether the petitioner has made out sufficient ground to allow the petition filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C?

2. What order?

6. My answer to the above points are.-

Point No.1:– In the Affirmative Point No.2:– As per final order for the following

REASONS

7. Point No.1:- The petitioner counsel has addressed the

arguments contending that the petitioner is innocent of the alleged 6 Crl.Misc.No.2806/2024 offences. The petitioner counsel has contended that the registration of the present FIR for the alleged offences under Sections 465, 468, 473 r/w Section 34 of IPC was registered by the complainant who is a law practitioner as stated in the FIR, the primary and only allegation that can be seen on the face of the complaint is that an affidavit dated 06.07.1993 which has been produced by the accused No.1 and 2 before the Hon'ble High court of Karnataka on 25.10.2018. The petitioner counsel has contended that the complainant based on the imaginary story built up a false acquisitions and has blamed that the petitioner had done the act of tearing the paper in the government records in the year 1995-96 and the case revolves purely on the civil dispute but to create hardship and loss to the petitioner, the complainant has implicated him with a concocted story. The petitioner counsel has contended that the petitioner had purchased the said property as alleged by the complainant in the year 1993-94 by one Sathyanarayana Gupta who is none other than the family member of the complainant and the son of one A.Nagarathnamma and he has sold the said property and has no relation to the allegations that has been made against him. The petitioner counsel has contended that the petitioner has been issued notice by the respondent under Section 41(A) of Cr.P.C., on 23.11.2023 and he is law abiding citizen with deep ties to the community and he is permanent resident of Bengaluru and the petitioner has never been indicated in acts or criminal activity in the past and the complaint itself is false and vexatious, the said case is a deceitful case with an intention to harass the petitioner. The petitioner counsel has contended that the petitioner is hails from respectable family and having deep roots in the society and also the petitioner is ready and willing to abide by the terms and conditions imposed by this 7 Crl.Misc.No.2806/2024 court and also co-operate with the investigation. Hence, prays to allow the bail petition.

8. The learned Public Prosecutor has addressed the

arguments contending that the offences alleged against the petitioner are grievous in nature and also has further contended that the the complaint averments prima facie shows that the petitioner and others are involved in the alleged offences. The learned Public Prosecutor has further contended that the investigation is still in pending at this stage if the bail petition of the petitioner is allowed there is every chances of petitioner threatening the prosecution witnesses, destroy the evidence, abscond and hamper the trial. Hence, prays to reject the bail petition.

9. On perusal of the records it is noticed that the complainant

has lodged a complaint alleging that Smt.Nagarathnamma had purchased a residential plot No.1181/L, 3rd Cross, Avalahalli 30 feet Main Road, Raghavendra Block, Gavipura, Bengaluru and she was married to one Ashwathnarayana Setty and she having four sons and daughters and her son late P.A.Sathyanarayana Gupta was died on 22.08.1995 and Smt.Gajalakshmamma and Sri.Ananda Krishna Murthy expired in the year 1992 and 1997 respectively. After the death of P.A.Sathyanarayana Gupta, no one was to support his wife and children who were minors and the property remained in the physical possession of Smt.Chandrakala since then and due to some family differences in the year 2012, a civil suit for partition in OS.No.7838/2012 was filed and the same was ended in compromise and all the defendants have given up their rights on the suit schedule property in favour of N.S.Anandthe complainant herein. Later the complainant came to know with respect to the said property there was an unknown sale deed dated 16.07.1993 was registered wherein the said sale deed late P.A.Sathyanarayana 8 Crl.Misc.No.2806/2024 Gupta had sold the said property to Lokanath and later he enquired his mother-in-law Smt.Chandrakala, but had no support and there was no partition of the ownership of the property amongst the legal heirs of late Smt.Nagarathnamma. As such the complainant alleging that the accused No.3 has committed the offence of forgery with the help of staff of the Sub-Registrar office and later in the year 2001 he came to know that Lokanath was arrested by the Sanjaynagara police along with Jedaralli Krishnappa in SC.No81/2002 and to escape from that criminal case the said accused No.3 sold the property to accused No.1 and his Benamidar A.Prasanna Kumar. The accused No.1 and 2 got the same registered by changing the site No.19 to site No.19/10, illegally without any BBMP order and when the complainant in the year 2018 tried to construct in the said property, on 03.04.2018 the accused No.1 and 2 came to the said property and made galata with regard to this a Writ Petition No.13533/2018 has been filed before the Hon'ble High court of Karnataka and during the said proceedings the accused No.1 and 2 have filed the created affidavit dated 06.07.1993 which has been produced before the Hon'ble High court of Karnataka on 25.10.2018 and there is false mention that the complainant's property has been partitioned and the accused No.1 to 3 together on the said affidavit had got it notarized, sealed and signed by one Sri.Saklesh Aradya and when the matter is pending before the Hon'ble High court of Karnataka. As such alleging the said facts the complainant has lodged the complaint. On perusal of the records it is noticed that the police have registered the case in Crime No.89/2023 for the offences punishable under Sections 465, 468, 473 r/w Section 34 of IPC. The offences alleged against the petitioner are not punishable with imprisonment for life or death. The petitioner has contended that he is ready and willing to abide by the terms and conditions imposed by this court and also co9 Crl.Misc.No.2806/2024 operate with the investigation and also the petitioner has contended that the complaint has been filed on the false, vague and imaginary story and has further contended that he has purchased the property in the year 1993-94 by one Sathyanarayana Gupta who is none other than the family member of A.Nagarathnamma. The petitioner has contended that he is ready and willing to abide by the terms and conditions imposed by this court and also co-operate with the investigation. The apprehension of the prosecution is that if the bail petition of the petitioner is allowed there is every chances of petitioner threatening the prosecution witnesses, destroy the evidence, abscond and hamper the trial. The apprehension of the prosecution can be satisfied by imposing stringent conditions. The case is still under the stage investigation and the guilt of the petitioner has to be proved during the course of trial as of now it cannot be said that the petitioner has committed the alleged offences. Admittedly, the petitioner is resident of the address shown in the cause title. If at all during the course of trial, the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of the petitioner, he can be dealt with in accordance with law. Considering all these facts, I am of the opinion that the petitioner can be enlarged on bail by imposing certain conditions, which would meet the apprehension of prosecution. Accordingly, I answer the point No.1 in the 'Affirmative'.

10. Point No.2:- In view of the findings given on point No.1, I

proceed to pass the following.-

ORDER

The petition filed by the petitioner under Section 438 Cr.P.C., is allowed. The respondent Vidhana Soudha police are directed to release the petitioner on bail in the 10 Crl.Misc.No.2806/2024 event of his arrest in Crime No.89/2023 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 465, 468, 473 r/w Section 34 of IPC, on execution of personal bond for Rs.1,00,000/- with one surety for the likesum subject to the following CONDITIONS:-

1. The petitioner shall appear before the court on all dates of hearing and shall cooperate with the investigation.

2. The petitioner shall appear before the I.O whenever he is called upon for the purpose of investigation.

3. The petitioner shall not tamper with the evidence and shall not threaten, induce allure the prosecution witnesses in what so ever manner.

4. The petitioner shall not involve in any criminal activity.

5. The petitioner shall produce the permanent address proof document.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and then pronounced by me in the Open Court on this 25th day of March, 2024) (HEMANTH KUMAR. C.R) LXV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.