KABC010088092024 IN THE COURT OF LXVI ADDL CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY (CCH-67) PRESENT SHRI. HEMANTH KUMAR. C.R , B.A.L., L.L.B., LXV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, I/C LXVI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru. Dated this the 5 th day of April, 2024 Crl.Misc.No.3120/2024 PETITIONER/S:- 1. SRI. NAGALINGA SWAMY. N, s/o R. Ningaiah, Aged about 51 years, R/at No.63, 1st Floor, 1st Cross, 1st Main Road, 1st Block East Jayanagar, Bengaluru -560011. [Accused No.3]

2. SRI. RAGHAVENDRA. T.R, s/o T.K. Raman, Aged about 51 years, R/at No.1192, 18th Main, Near J.P. Nagar Club, J.P. Nagar 2nd Phase, Bengaluru -560078. [Accused No.4]

(By Sri. SG., Advocate) V/s. 2 Crl.Misc.No.3120/2024 RESPONDENT:- STATE OF KARNATAKA, By Jayaprakash Nagar Police Station, Bengaluru. (Rep. by Public Prosecutor) ORDER ON 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 petitioners/ accused No.3 and 4 in Crime No.344/2023 registered by the Jayaprakash Nagar police for the offence punishable under Sections 467, 468 r/w Section 34 of IPC.

2. Brief facts of the case are as follows.-

The complainant has lodged the complaint alleging that her husband relative Yellamma and Junjappa, who have no children. The complainant husband was taking care of them. The father-in-law of complainant was died in the year 1969, at that time the mother-in-law Yellamma was aged about 60 years. The said Yellamma had executed registered WILL in favour of complainant husband Muniraju. In the year 2010 the complainant husband was died. That site No.112/1 measuring 36×45 feet was purchased by Junjappa in the year 1941-42, with intention to knock off the above said property, the petitioner and others created adoption deed, Junjappa’s death certificate and created building plan, submitted to court and they are trying to alienate the property. Alleging the same the complainant has lodged the complaint. The police on receipt of the said complaint have registered the case in Crime No.344/2023 for the offences punishable under Sections 467, 468 r/w Section 34 of IPC.

3. The petitioners being aggrieved by the same, have

preferred this bail petition on the following among other grounds. The 3 Crl.Misc.No.3120/2024 petitioners submit that they are innocent of the alleged offences and there are no specific allegations or overt act against the petitioners in the complaint and the complainant has given false complaint. The petitioners submit that the allegations made in the complaint does not disclose an offence punishable under Sections 467, 468 r/w Section 34 of IPC against the petitioners and nowhere in the complaint shows that the act 467, 468 r/w Section 34 of IPC has been done by the petitioners against the complainant and the petitioners have been falsely implicated by the complainant. The petitioners submit that the complainant has filed false case against the petitioners and the petitioners are law abiding citizen and the offences alleged against the petitioners are not punishable with imprisonment for life or death. The petitioners submit that they are permanent resident of the address mentioned in the cause title and they are 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 offence alleged against the petitioners are grievous in nature and also has further contended that the complaint averments prima facie shows that the petitioners have committed the alleged offences and also has further contended that as the case is still under stage of investigation at this stage if the bail petition of the petitioners are allowed, there is every chances of petitioners 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 are: 4 Crl.Misc.No.3120/2024

1. Whether the petitioners have made out sufficient grounds 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 petitioners counsel has addressed the

arguments contending that the petitioners are innocent of the alleged and and there are no specific allegations or overt act against the petitioners in the complaint and the complainant has given false complaint. The petitioners counsel has further contended that the allegations made in the complaint does not disclose an offence punishable under Sections 467, 468 r/w Section 34 of IPC against the petitioners and nowhere in the complaint shows that the act 467, 468 r/w Section 34 of IPC has been done by the petitioners against the complainant and the petitioners have been falsely implicated by the complainant. The petitioners counsel has further contended that the complainant has filed false case against the petitioners and the petitioners are law abiding citizen and the offences alleged against the petitioners are not punishable with imprisonment for life or death. The petitioners counsel has further contended that the petitioners are 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.

8. The learned Public Prosecutor has addressed the

arguments contending that the offence alleged against the petitioners 5 Crl.Misc.No.3120/2024 are grievous in nature and also has further contended that the complaint averments prima facie shows that the petitioners have committed the alleged offences and also has further contended that as the case is still under stage of investigation at this stage if the bail petition of the petitioners are allowed, there is every chances of petitioners 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 the complaint alleging that her husband relative Yellamma and Junjappa, who have no children. The complainant husband was taking care of them. The father-in-law of complainant was died in the year 1969, at that time the mother-in-law Yellamma was aged about 60 years. The said Yellamma had executed registered WILL in favour of complainant husband Muniraju. In the year 2010 the complainant husband was died. That site No.112/1 measuring 36×45 feet was purchased by Junjappa in the year 1941-42, with intention to knock off the above said property, the petitioner and others created adoption deed, Junjappa’s death certificate and created building plan, submitted to court and they are trying to alienate the property. Alleging the same the complainant has lodged the complaint. The police on receipt of the said complaint have registered the case in Crime No.344/2023 for the offences punishable under Sections 467, 468 r/w Section 34 of IPC. On perusal of the records it is noticed that the offences alleged against the petitioners are under Sections 467, 468 r/w Section 34 of IPC. The said offences alleged against the petitioners not punishable with imprisonment for life or death. The petitioners have contended that they are ready and willing to abide by the terms and conditions imposed by this court and also and also co-operate with the investigation. The 6 Crl.Misc.No.3120/2024 apprehension of the prosecution is that if the bail petition of the petitioners are allowed there is every chances of petitioners threatening the prosecution witnesses, destroy the evidence, abscond and hamper the trial. On perusal of the records it is noticed that the case is still under the stage of investigation at this stage it cannot be said that the petitioners have committed the alleged offences. The petitioners have contended that they are ready and willing to abide by the terms and conditions imposed by this court and also co-operate with the investigation. The said apprehension of the prosecution can be satisfied by imposing stringent conditions. Admittedly, the petitioners are 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 petitioners, they can be dealt with in accordance with law. Considering all these facts, I am of the opinion that the petitioners 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 petitioners/ accused No.3 and 4 under Section 438 Cr.P.C., is hereby allowed. The respondent Jayaprakash Nagar police are hereby directed to release the petitioners on bail in the event of their arrest in Crime No.344/2023 registered for the offence punishable under Sections 467, 468 r/w 7 Crl.Misc.No.3120/2024 Section 34 of IPC, on execution of personal bond for Rs.50,000/- with one surety each for the likesum subject to the following CONDITIONS:-

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

2. The petitioners shall appear before the I.O whenever they are called upon for the purpose of investigation.

3. The petitioners shall not tamper with the evidence and shall not threaten, induce allure the prosecution witnesses in whatsoever manner.

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

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

(Directly dictated to the Stenographer online computer, typed by her, corrected and then pronounced by me in the Open Court on this 5th day of April, 2024.) (HEMANTH KUMAR. C.R) LXV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, I/C LXVI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.