Crl.Misc.No.2924/2024 KABC010082522024 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 3rd day of April, 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.2924/2024 Petitioner: Sri Syed Sha Salahuddin @ Salauddin s/o Syed Sha Mohammed Jakki, aged about 52 years, r/at No. 91/08, Jodidar house, opposite to Kaveri Grameena Bank, Old SBM road, Nelamangala, Bengaluru Rural District. (By Sri H.S.Ramu and Associates) Crl.Misc.No.2924/2024 ­V/S­ Respondent : State of Karnataka by Pulakeshinagar P.S, B`lore (Represented by Public Prosecutor) ORDER ON BAIL PETITION FILED U/SEC. 438 OF CR.P.C. The petitioner has 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 respondent police, in connection with Crime No. 191/2019­ CC No. 11299/2021, wherein the petitioner stands as accused of offences punishable u/sec. 406, 420, 120B, 504, 506 r/w 34 of Indian Panel Code.

2. The petitioner pleading false implication and absence

of primafacie material supporting the commission of offences necessitating punishable u/sec. 406, 420, 120B, 504, 506 r/w 34 of IPC, expressing genuine apprehension of imminent arrest by the respondent police, sought for his release on pre­arrest bail. Crl.Misc.No.2924/2024

3. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has filed

objection contending that, there exists prima­facie material on record indicating that the petitioner has 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 petitioner has made out any grounds to enlarge him on bail u/sec. 438 of Cr.P.C.?

2. What order?

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

REASONS

6. POINT NO.1; The case of the prosecution is that on

24.9.2019 Dr. Ashfakh Ahmed , resident of Frazer Town, Bengaluru lodged a complaint alleging that in 2015, the petitioner herein facilitated a meeting with one Nataraj/Accused no.1, acting as a mediator, for the acquisition of land intended for the construction of a hospital. Crl.Misc.No.2924/2024 Consequently, the complainant entered into an agreement with the landowners to purchase 20 acres of land. Subsequently, it is alleged that the aforementioned Nataraj demanded Rs. 75 lakhs to facilitate the conversion of the land for non­ agricultural purposes. Moreover, it is further alleged that both Nataraj and his wife, Shilpashree, subsequently demanded an additional sum of Rs. 75 lakhs. Allegedly, between 2015 and 2017, the aforementioned Nataraj and his wife received Rs. 1.5 crore from the complainant under the pretext of needing it to be paid to a Minister to obtain the conversion order. However, the accused persons failed to fulfill their promised obligations. Hence, it is alleged that the accused persons committed the aforementioned offense.

7. Having perused the charge sheet filed against the

accused persons, wherein the present petitioner is arrayed as accused No.2. The accused No.2 in the FIR, Shilpashree, has been omitted from the charge sheet due to a lack of evidence. As astutely argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner, there exists no allegation against the present petitioner regarding the Crl.Misc.No.2924/2024 receipt of any amount from the complainant. It is contended that accused No.1 allegedly received the entire sum of Rs. 1.5 crore from the complainant, yet no evidence supporting this claim has been furnished by the prosecution in the charge sheet. Furthermore, both accused No.1 and No.2 in the FIR were previously granted bail under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code, by the order dated October 17, 2019. The learned counsel for the petitioner has further asserted that the petitioner was unaware of the registration of the FIR and the pending case against him. Although the alleged offences are non­bailable, they are all triable by the Court of the Magistrate of First Class. Hence, it is deemed just and fit to grant bail to the petitioner, Salahuddin. 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: For the aforesaid reasons and discussion,

this court proceed to pass the following; Crl.Misc.No.2924/2024

ORDER

The petition filed u/sec. 438 of Cr.P.C. by the Petitioner is hereby allowed. In the event of arrest of petitioner, in connection with Cr. No.191/2019­ CC No. 11299/2021 registered by the respondent police station for the offence punishable u/sec. 406, 420, 120B, 504, 506 r/w 34 of IPC, the respondent police hereby directed to release him on bail, on obtaining his personal bond for Rs.1,00,000/­ with a surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the Investigating officer, subject to the following conditions.

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

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

3. The petitioner shall not commit similar offence. Crl.Misc.No.2924/2024

4. The petitioners shall appear before the trial court within 15 days from the date of this order.

(Dictated to the Stenographer Grade ­ I, transcript thereof is corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in open court on this the 3rd day of April, 2024) (Hareesha A.) XXVII Addl. CC & SJ holding c/c of 69th Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge,Bangalore.