Crl.Misc.No.2878/2024 KABC010080952024 IN THE COURT OF THE XXVII ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH 9) AND HOLDING CONCURRENT CHARGE OF LXIX ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH 70) BANGALORE CITY Dated this the 28th day of March, 2024 PRESENT Sri. Hareesha A., B.A.,LL.B, XXVII Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge (CCH 9) and also holding concurrent charge of the court of 69th Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge (CCH 70). Crl.Misc.No.2878/2024 Petitioners: 1. M.G.Gangaiah s/o late Gangadharaiah (Gangegowda) aged about 79 years, r/at No. 110, RMV layout 2nd stage, 4th block, MLA Layout, Bengaluru 560 094..

2. M.G.Lingappa s/o late Gangadharaiah (Gangegowda) aged about 82 years, Crl.Misc.No.2878/2024

r/at Mavinahalli village, Gubbi taluk, Tumkur district.

3. Jagadish M.L s/o M.G.Lingappa aged about 38 years, r/at No. 7, 8th cross, near Gadimunddanna road, Kamakshipalya, Bengaluru.

4. Smt. Pankaja M.L. d/o M.G.Lingappa, r/at No. 7, 8th cross, near Gadimundanna road, Kamakshipalya, Bangalore .

(By Shiva and Shiva, Advocates ) ­V/S­ Respondent : State of Karnataka by Annapoorneshwari nagar P.S, B`lore (Represented by Public Prosecutor) ORDER ON BAIL PETITION FILED U/SEC. 438 OF CR.P.C. The petitioners have invoked the jurisdiction of this court under Sec. 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) citing a reasonable apprehension of imminent arrest by the Crl.Misc.No.2878/2024 respondent police, in connection with Crime No. 449/2023, wherein the petitioners stands as as accused No.1 to 4 of offences punishable u/sec. 420, 423, 323, 324 and 506, 468, 120A r/w 34 of Indian Panel Code.

2. The petitioners pleading false implication and absence

of primafacie material supporting the charges of offences necessitating punishable u/sec. 420, 423, 323, 324 and 506, 468, 120A r/w 34 of IPC, expressing genuine apprehension of imminent arrest by the respondent police, sought for their release on pre­arrest bail.

3. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has filed

objection contending that, there exists prima­facie material on record indicating that the petitioners have allegedly committed the offences in question, hence sought to dismiss the petition.

4. I have heard the argument an perused the petition

averments. The point that would arise for my determination is:

1. Whether the petitioners have made out any grounds to enlarge them on bail u/sec. 438 of Cr.P.C.? Crl.Misc.No.2878/2024

2. What order?

5. My answer is in the Affirmative for the following;

REASONS

6. POINT NO.1; The complainant approached the

Hon’ble V ACMM, Bengaluru under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. to prosecute the petitioners for the offences punishable u/sec. 420, 423, 323, 324 and 506, 468, 120A r/w 34 of IPC. Though the allegations runs into several pages, the gist of the complaint is that the accused persons by fabricating the documents trespassed into the property bearing sy. No. 33/2 measuring 35 guntas situated at Srigandadakaval village, Yeshwanthpura hobli, Bengaluru North taluk which is a converted land in which the Dayalan House Building Cooperate Society had formed the layout. It is alleged that the complainant had purchased the site bearing No. 69/A through a registered Sale Deed dated 7.9.2022 from the Dayalan House Building Cooperate Society and since then she is in lawful possession of the same. However it is alleged that the accused persons on the Crl.Misc.No.2878/2024 basis of the fabricated documents claiming title over the entire property and thereafter created several documents. The complainant has made allegation against one of the Directors of the Dayalan House Building Cooperate Society and therefore it is alleged that the accused persons had committed the aforesaid offences.

7. The learned counsel for petitioners has produced the

copy of the GPA dated 27.7.2002 and the Death Certificate of Gopala and the copy of the plaint in OS No. 5819/2023 and order passed by the City Civil Judge under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of CPC. It becomes evident that there are numerous civil suits pending before various courts in Bengaluru City concerning the same property. Notably, in the suit initiated by petitioners No.3 and 4 under OS No. 3343/2023, the Hon'ble 12th Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City, has directed the parties to maintain status quo regarding the disputed site. It is well­established in legal jurisprudence that attributing a criminal dimension to a civil dispute is impermissible. It is admitted that an order was passed by the Crl.Misc.No.2878/2024 learned Magistrate under Section 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code, leading to the registration of a First Information Report against the petitioners for non­bailable offenses. Under such circumstances, the apprehension of arrest is well­founded. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that it is just and appropriate to grant the petition, albeit with stringent conditions. Apart from that the alleged offences are though non bailable in nature, they are not punishable with death or imprisonment for life and they are triable by the court of Magistrate of First Class. To address the prosecution's concerns regarding the potential flight risk, stringent conditions can be imposed as a measure to mitigate such apprehensions. Accordingly the Point No.1 is answered in the affirmative.

8. Point No.2: By considering the above over all reasons

this court proceed to pass the following;

ORDER

The petition filed u/sec. 438 of Cr.P.C. by the Petitioners is hereby allowed. Crl.Misc.No.2878/2024 In the event of arrest of petitioners, in connection with Cr. No. 449/2023 registered by the respondent police station for the offence punishable u/sec. 420, 423, 323, 324 and 506, 468, 120A r/w 34 of IPC, the respondent police hereby directed to release them on bail, on obtaining their personal bond for Rs.1,00,000/­ each with a surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the Investigating officer, subject to the following conditions.

1. The petitioners shall appear before the police and trial court as and when summoned for the purpose of investigation or trial.

2. The petitioners shall not threaten or tamper with the Prosecution witnesses directly or indirectly.

3. The petitioners shall not commit similar offence.

4. The petitioners shall cooperate for investigation.

(Dictated to the Stenographer Grade ­ I, transcript thereof is corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in open court on this the 28th day of March, 2024) (Hareesha A.) XXVII Addl. CC & SJ holding c/c of 69th Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge,Bangalore.