Crl. Misc. No.2861/2024 KABC010080132024 IN THE COURT OF THE LXI ADDL. CITY CIVIL, SESSIONS JUDGE: BENGALURU CITY Dated this the 02 nd 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.2861/2024 Petitioner/s : 1. M.Shiva Kumar Aged about 43 years S/o.Manikyam R/a.No.720/B, Garadi Mane Road 2nd Division, Bommanakatte, Hariyur, Badravathi Shivamogga Karnataka-577 302 Also at: No.PH-6, Prabhavathi Shadow Apartment Arakere, Bengaluru-560 076.

2. Kiran Kumar.S Aged about 44 years S/o.Surendra Reddy R/a. No.103, 20th Cross Crl. Misc. No.2861/2024

K.R.Layout JP Nagar 6th Phase Bengaluru South Bengaluru-560 078. (By Sri.M.Gopal, Adv.) V/s. Respondent : The State by Hulimavu 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.No.583/2023, which is registered by the Hulimavu Police Station, Bengaluru alleging that petitioners have committed the offences punishable under Section 406, 417, 420, 506 R/w. Section 34 of IPC.

2. The petitioners contents that they are the partners in

Sannidhi Builders and Developers and they are innocent of the alleged offences and have no motive to commit the alleged offences and a false case has been foisted against them and Crl. Misc. No.2861/2024 they are permanent residents of Bengaluru and are residing along with their respective families and petitioners have got old age parents to look after and their family members are entirely depending upon them for their livelihood & the dispute between the parties is civil in nature and the alleged offences are not punishable with death or imprisonment for life and they are ready and willing to abide by the terms and conditions that may be imposed by this court and they are also ready to offer solvent surety to the satisfaction of the Court for his release on bail, hence they is 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 materials placed on record prima-facie 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.2861/2024 1) Whether the anticipatory bail petition filed by the petitioner 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 it

is alleged that the petitioners along with other accused being the partners of Sannidi Builders and Developers had executed a registered agreement of sell in favour of Complainant on 29.12.2020 in respect of the apartment Flat bearing No.203, 2nd Floor of Nisrga Apartments, measuring 1050 sq. ft. built up in survey No.44/1, situated at Arakere Village, Beguru Hobli & complainant had paid advance amount of Rs.25 Lakhs to the petitioners and other accused and later the complainant learnts that the petitioners and other accused had already sold the agreement schedule property to one Crl. Misc. No.2861/2024 Shetty Krishna Kishore and when the complainant enquired the same with the petitioners and other accused, the petitioners and other accused threatened the complainant with dire consequences and the petitioners and other accused have cheated the complainant and thereby the petitioners and other accused have committed the offences punishable under Section 406, 417, 420, 506 R/w. Section 34 of IPC.

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

are innocent of the alleged offences and they have not at all committed the alleged offences and they are ready and willing to abide by the conditions that may be imposed by the court for his release on bail.

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 do no hold any water as the cause title of the petition & copy of the FIR and copy of the Aadhar card of the petitioners one produced by them shows that they are permanent residents of Bengaluru and as such their presence can be easily secured before the court & I.O. Crl. Misc. No.2861/2024

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 under

Section 406, 417, 420, 506 R/w. Section 34 of IPC are not at all punishable with death or life imprisonment and since the alleged offences against the petitioners appears to be a civil in nature and since in the ruling of 2020(1) KCCR SN 29 (SC) it has been clearly held that – 'When the matter is civil in nature, the continuation of criminal proceedings will be abuse process of law' 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 anticipatory bail subject to conditions and accordingly, I have answered the above point No.1 in affirmative. Crl. Misc. No.2861/2024

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 one 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 Cr. No.583/2023 of respondent Police they shall be released on bail on executing a personal bond for 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.

3. That the petitioners shall not leave the

jurisdiction of the court without prior permission.

4. That the petitioners shall furnish their

residential address proof and that of their surety.

5. That the petitioners shall not indulge in

similar type of offences in future. Crl. Misc. No.2861/2024

6. That the petitioners shall appear before

the trial court regularly without fail on receipt of the summons.

7. 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 02nd day of April, 2024). (NISHARANI A.C) C/C LXI ACC & SJ, B’luru.