KABC010078542024 IN THE COURT OF LXV ADDL CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY (CCH-66) PRESENT SHRI. HEMANTH KUMAR. C.R , B.A.L., L.L.B., LXV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru. Dated this the 28 th day of March, 2024 Crl.Misc.No.2810/2024 PETITIONER/S:- 1. SRI. S. RAMESH, s/o. Late T.C. Subramani Aged about 52 years, [Accused No.1]

2. SMT. MOHANA PRIYA, w/o. S.Ramesh, Aged about 43 years, [Accused No.2]

Both are R/at No.122/A, 4th Cross, 40 Feet Main Road, WOC Road, Manjunatha Nagar, Bengaluru -560010.

3. SRI. SANJAY, s/o P.Nanda Kumar, Aged about 27 years, R/at No.122, 4th Cross, 40 feet Main Road, West of Chord Road, Manjunathanagar, Bengaluru -10. [ Accused No.3]

(By Sri. MBS., Advocate) V/s. 2 Crl.Misc.No.2810/2024 RESPONDENT:- STATE OF KARNATAKA, By Bagalagunte Police Station, Bengaluru. (Rep. by Public Prosecutor) * * * * ORDER ON BAIL 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.1 and 2 in Crime No.25/2024 registered by the Bagalagunte police for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 504, 506 r/w Section 149 of IPC.

2. Facts of the case are as follows.-

The complainant Hanumantharaya has lodged the complaint alleging that in the year 2021 the accused No.1 and 2 being the husband and wife had informed the complainant that the Canara Bank is giving loan in the scheme of Central Government scheme of Pradhana Mantri Rojgra Yojana for small scale industries for machines and also give 30% subsidy in this scheme. Believing the words of the accused persons the complainant gave his Aadhaar card, PAN card, IT returns and GST certificate and the accused persons have given duplicate quotation form Manjunatha Engineering workshop to bank and got granted the loan amount in the name of the complainant for a sum of Rs.17,80,000/- from the Canara Bank and got transferred to their account in this scheme for delivering the centering materials to the complainant. When the complainant asked the accused No.1 and 2 they postponed one or the other reason and after three months the bank people informed to the complainant that he has to pay monthly 3 Crl.Misc.No.2810/2024 installment of Rs.22,000/- from the account bearing No.170002727628 and thereby the accused persons have misappropriated the amount of Rs.17,80,000/- for their personal use and the accused persons have also cheated the complainant and many other peoples. Alleging the same the complainant has lodged the present complaint. The police on receipt of the said complaint have registered the case in Crime No.25/2024 against the accused persons for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 504, 506 r/w Section 149 of IPC.

3. The petitioners being aggrieved by the same, have

preferred this bail petition on the following among other grounds. The petitioners submit that they are innocent of the alleged offences and the offences alleged against the petitioners are not punishable with imprisonment for life or death. The petitioners submit that the complainant is aware of the loan scheme of the Central Government and he has obtained the loan from the Canara Bank and the accused persons have supplied the centering materials, that materials utilized by the complainant and in spite of that the complainant having not paid the EMI loan amount due to the loss of the business, but the complainant colluded with the respondent police has lodged the complaint against the accused persons. The petitioners submit that the complainant to escape the liability to pay EMI of Canara Bank loan amount, has made false allegations against the petitioners. The petitioners submit that the complainant has alleged that the petitioners have also cheated the other persons but non of them have lodge the complaint against the petitioners. The petitioners submit that the trial court has granted bail to the accused No.4 in the present case. The petitioners have contended that they are also entitle for bail on the ground of parity. The petitioners submit that they are ready and willing 4 Crl.Misc.No.2810/2024 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 to the said application contending that the offences alleged against the petitioners are grievous in nature and also has further contended that the petitioners have cheated the complainant and the amount involved in the alleged offence is huge amount. The learned Public Prosecutor has also further contended that the petitioners have also cheated the other persons and they have misappropriated the huge amount. The learned Public Prosecutor has also further contended that the complaint averments prima facie shows that the petitioners are involved in the alleged commission of the offences. The learned Public Prosecutor has further contended that the investigation is still in progress at this stage if the bail petition of the petitioners are allowed there is every chances of petitioners threatening the prosecution witnesses, destroying 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.-

1. Whether the petitioners/ accused No.1 and 2 have made out sufficient ground 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 5 Crl.Misc.No.2810/2024

REASONS

7. Point No.1:- The petitioners counsel has addressed

the arguments contending that the petitioners are innocent of the alleged offences and the offences alleged against the petitioners are not punishable with imprisonment for life or death. The petitioners counsel has further contended that the complainant is aware of the loan scheme of the Central Government and he has obtained the loan from the Canara Bank and the accused persons have supplied the centering materials, that materials utilized by the complainant and in spite of that the complainant having not paid the EMI loan amount due to the loss of the business, but the complainant colluded with the respondent police has lodged the complaint against the accused persons. The petitioners counsel has further contended that the complainant to escape the liability to pay EMI of Canara Bank loan amount, has made false allegations against the petitioners. The petitioners counsel has further contended that the complainant has alleged that the petitioners have also cheated the other persons but non of them have lodge the complaint against the petitioners. The petitioners counsel has further contended that the trial court has granted bail to the accused No.4 in the present case and they are also entitle for the relief of bail on the ground of parity. 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 offences alleged against the petitioners are grievous in nature and also has further contended that the 6 Crl.Misc.No.2810/2024 petitioners have cheated the complainant and the amount involved in the alleged offence is huge amount. The learned Public Prosecutor has also further contended that the petitioners have also cheated the other persons and they have misappropriated the huge amount. The learned Public Prosecutor has also further contended that the complaint averments prima facie shows that the petitioners are involved in the alleged commission of the offences. The learned Public Prosecutor has further contended that the investigation is still in progress at this stage if the bail petition of the petitioners are allowed there is every chances of petitioners threatening the prosecution witnesses, destroying 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 the accused persons had approached the complainant and informed that the Canara Bank is giving loan under the scheme of Central Government scheme of Pradhana Mantri Rojgra Yojana for small scale industries for machines and also give 30% subsidy in this scheme. Believing the words of the accused persons the complainant has given his Aadhaar card, PAN card, IT returns and GST certificate and other documents. The accused persons having created the duplicate quotation form Manjunatha Engineering workshop to bank and got granted the loan amount in the name of the complainant for a sum of Rs.17,80,000/- from the Canara Bank and got transferred to their account in this scheme for delivering the centering materials to the complainant. When the complainant asked the accused No.1 and 2 they postponed one or the other reason and after three months the bank officials informed the complainant that he has to pay monthly installment of 7 Crl.Misc.No.2810/2024 Rs.22,000/- from the account bearing No.170002727628 and later the complainant came to know that the accused persons have misappropriated the amount of Rs.17,80,000/- for their personal use and the accused persons have also cheated the complainant and many other peoples. Alleging the same the complainant has lodged the complaint. The police on receipt of the said complaint have registered the case in Crime No.25/2024 against the accused persons for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 504, 506 r/w Section 149 of IPC. On perusal of the records it is noticed that the offences alleged against the petitioners are 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 co-operate with the investigation and also further contended that the accused No.4 has been already enlarged on bail in the present case by the trial court. The 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. The said apprehension of the prosecution can be satisfied by imposing stringent conditions. 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 guilt of the petitioners have to be proved during the course of trial. In the present case as the case is still under the stage of investigation and the accused No.4 having been already granted bail by the trial court and the present petitioners are also entitled for the relief of bail on the ground of parity. As the offences alleged against the petitioners are not punishable with imprisonment for life or death. Admittedly, the petitioners are resident of the address shown in the cause title. If at all 8 Crl.Misc.No.2810/2024 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.1 to 3 under Section 438 Cr.P.C., is hereby allowed. The respondent Bagalagunte police are directed to release the petitioners on bail in the event of their arrest in Crime No.25/2024 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 504, 506 r/w Section 149 of IPC, on execution of personal bond for Rs.1,00,000/- 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. 9 Crl.Misc.No.2810/2024

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

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

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

(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and then pronounced by me in the Open Court on this 28th day of March, 2024) (HEMANTH KUMAR. C.R) LXV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.