KABC010080082024 IN THE COURT OF THE LI ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE AT BENGALURU CITY. (CCH 52) Dated this the 1st day of April 2024 :PRESENT: Sri. Yashawanth Kumar, B.A.(Law), LL.B, LI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City. Crl. Misc. No. 2859/2024 Petitioner/s: Sri. Girish D, S/o. Dasaiah, Aged about 33 years, R/at. No. C-909, High Court staff quarters, NGEF Layout, Baiyappanahalli, Bengaluru North, Bengaluru, Karnataka – 560 038. (By Sri. Pranav Ullas Balekundri Adv.) //Vs// Respondent: 1. The State of Karnataka, By Bharathi Nagar Police station, Pulikeshi Nagar Sub division, Bengaluru City, Crl.Misc. 2859/2024

2. Deputy Superintendent of Police & investigating Officer, Special enquiry Division, CID, Bengaluru.

(Rep. by Learned Public Prosecutor. Bengaluru City)

ORDER

The petitioner has filed this petition U/sec. 438 of Cr.P.C., for the grant of anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest by the respondent police in Crime No.1147/2021 now investigated by the Respondent Police for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 465, 468, 471 R/w. 34 of IPC.

2. The petitioner has contended as under;

The petitioner is working as a Bailiff in the Small Causes Court, Bengaluru City. The respondent police are trying to arrest the petitioner. There is imminent threat of his arrest. If he is arrested, his reputation in the society will be at stake. He is a permanent resident of Bengaluru City. He undertakes to abide by the conditions that may be imposed by the court. Crl.Misc. 2859/2024

3. The learned public prosecutor appeared for the

respondent and filed his objections along with the report of the I.O. It is contended that the investigation is in progress. Hon'ble High Court is monitoring the progress of investigation in Writ petition No. 7714/2020. Though the petitioner was aware that the property belongs to the informant A.T. Ravikumar, he has served notice to the fake tenant John pinto to hand over the possession of the property to fake owner Shanmugam Chettiyar without visiting the place and without properly making inquiry about the said John pinto. He has not obtained identification proof from John pinto. If the petitioner is granted anticipatory bail, he may tamper with prosecution witnesses and hamper the investigation of the case. There is likelihood of his fleeing from justice. He may try to destroy the evidence. He may try to commit similar offence.

4. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the

petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor for respondent.

5. The points that arise for my consideration is :

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled for anticipatory bail as prayed by him? Crl.Misc. 2859/2024

2. What Order?

6. My finding on the above points are as under:

Point No.1: In the Negative. Point No.2: As per final order for the following;

REASONS

7. Point No.1:- The Bharathi Nagar police have

registered a case against seven accused persons and others in their Cr.No.147/2021 for the offence punishable U/sec. 420, 465, 468 and 471 R/w. Sec. 34 of IPC on the complaint of informant A.T. Ravikumar. It is alleged that he is the owner in possession of the property bearing No. 7( Old No. 6/1) PID No. 81-14-7, St. John's road, BBMP Ward No. 90, old ward No. 81, Hulsoor, Bengaluru measuring 5272 sq.ft. On 30.4.2016 the accused persons broke open the gate of said property, changed the color of building, name board and lock of said building. In connection same, on 4.5.2016 the informant lodged a complaint to Bharathi Nagar police station. During the enquiry in the police station he came to know that the accused No.1 to 3 in collusion with other Crl.Misc. 2859/2024 accused persons created fake documents in respect of his property, filed eviction suit before the Small Causes Court(SCCH-14) in S.C.No.148/2016 and obtained an order to evict the accused John Pinto from the said property. Thereafter on 30.1.2016, parties of the said case compromised and obtained a decree. On the basis of said decree, they filed a execution petition No. 515/2016 and obtained an order to evict the tenant/JDR therein from the property. Thereafter, they have taken illegal possession of the said property. Subsequently the informant filed a Misc. petition No. 774/2016 and the court has dismissed the same. Thereafter the accused persons started threatening the informant and demanded money to give back the possession of the property. Though he has complained to the police and the court, he did not get any relief. In view of continuing life threat, subsequent to 26.4.2019 in order to save his property, the informant has paid a sum of Rs. 50,00,000/- to accused No.1 John Moses and his henchmen.

8. Now the case is being investigated by the CID

police, Benglauru. The Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka is Crl.Misc. 2859/2024 monitoring the progress of investigation in W.P.No. 7714/2020. It is contended that the accused No.1 and his henchmen have deceived many property owners in Bengaluru by creating fake documents and fake rent agreements and thereafter by filing eviction suits before the Small Causes Court, they obtained decree for eviction of fake tenants and evicted the real owners in possession of the property and in the said act, advocates, court staff are also involved. It is stated that about 120 similar cases have been registered against the accused No.1 and others.

9. It is true that the name of this petitioner is not

found in the FIR of in the complaint. However, it is alleged in the objections and report of the I.O. that the petitioner though aware that the property belonging to informant A.T. Ravikumar, he served notice to fake tenant John Pinto to hand over the possession of the property to fake owner Shanmugam Chettiyar. At the time of serving the notice, he has not verified the address of said John Pinto and he has not obtained identification proof of said John Pinto. It is also stated that the petitioner has not brought the alleged Crl.Misc. 2859/2024 fraud to the notice of Small Causes Court. Serious allegations have been made against this petitioner also. It is clearly stated that the petitioner was aware that the property belonging to the informant. The petitioner is a bailiff of the court, he plays major role in executing the decree of the court. He appears to be involved in the commission of the fraud. The fraud committed is not only against the informant, it is a fraud against the society as well against the court. If the allegation is against a court staff in respect of a fraud committed against the court, it is more serious and it is to be viewed very seriously. Considering the allegations against this petitioner, I am of the opinion that his custodial interrogation is required. It appears that he has not co-operate in the investigation of the case.

10. Considering the facts and circumstances of the

case, I am of the opinion that the petitioner is not entitled for the grant of anticipatory bail. Accordingly, I answer the point No.1 in the Negative.

11. Point No. 2: In view of my above discussions, I

proceed to pass the following: Crl.Misc. 2859/2024

ORDER

The bail petition filed by the petitioner U/Sec. 438 of Cr.P.C. is hereby rejected. (Dictated to the Stenographer grade-I, transcribed and computerised by her and after corrections, printout taken and then pronounced in the Open Court and signed by me, on this the 1 st day of April 2024) (Yashawanth Kumar) LI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City