KABC010087452024 Presented on : 28-03-2024 Registered on : 28-03-2024 Decided on : 06-04-2024 Duration : 0 years, 1 month, 8 days IN THE COURT OF THE LXIV ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH-65) AT BENGALURU) Dated this 6th day of April 2024 -: P R E S E N T :- Smt. Kalpana M.S., B.Sc., LL.M.,PGD-CLCF., LXIV ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, CCH-65, BENGALURU CITY. Crl.Misc.No. 3100 /2024 PETITIONER : 1. Smt. Anitha.P W/o.Venkatesh.R Aged about 39 years.

2. Sri.Venkatesh.R S/o.Ramaiah.T Aged about 49 years,

Both petitioners 1 and 2 are R/at.No.16/1 7th Cross, Yellamma Temple Street, Magadi Road, Bangalore-560 023. Crl.Misc.No.3100/2024

3. Sri.Naveen Kumar.P S/o.Late T.Prasanna Kumar, Aged about 33 years,

4. Smt. Likitha, W/o.Naveen Kumar.P Aged about 27 years,

5. Smt.Shamantha.R W/o.Late T.Prasanna Kumar, Aged about 65 years,

Petitioners No.3 to 5 are R/at.No.27, “Sri Raghavendra Nilaya” 5th Cross, Azad Nagar, Chamarajpet, Bangalore-560 018. (By Sri. A.Dharmesh, Advocate) /Vs/ RESPONDENT : State of Karnataka by Chamarajpet, Police Station, Bengaluru. (Rep. By Learned Public Prosecutor) ORDERS ON ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S.438 OF CR.P.C. Petitioners No.1 to 5 have filed this petition U/s.438 of Code Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred Crl.Misc.No.3100/2024 as Cr.P.C.,) seeking anticipatory bail in any criminal case registered by respondent police station for the offences punishable under Sections 368 and 420 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred as I.P.C.).

2. Learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the

State has filed objections statement along with report of the Investigating Officer opposing the bail petition.

3. For the purpose of brevity, the facts

mentioned in the petition and objections will be mentioned at appropriate stage of the orders.

4. Heard arguments. Perused the materials on record.

5. The points do arise for my consideration are;

1. Whether petitioners No.1 to 5 are entitled for grant of anticipatory Crl.Misc.No.3100/2024

bail U/s.438 of Code of Criminal Procedure?

2. What Order?

6. For the reasons stated hereinafter, my findings on the above points are as follows;

Point No.1: In the Negative Point No.2: As per final order for the following:- R E A S O N S

7. POINT No.1:- Along with petition, petitioners

have produced certified copies of complaint, report of C.I., Mandi Police Station, Mysore and Certified copy of the Plaint in O.s.No.6740/2017. Perused the same.

8. The facts set out in the petition, in brief, is

as under; The petitioners state that one Smt. G.P. Anitha has filed complaint dated 04.01.2024 against petitioners No.1 to 4 to Jameer Ahmed, sitting MLA alleging that on Crl.Misc.No.3100/2024 the same day at about 5.30 p.m. when she went near her house for inspection, she came to know that other persons are residing therein and on enquiry they have revealed that one P. Anitha has let out the house on rental basis and they are paying rent by way of cash. In a span of five minutes, petitioners No.1 to 4 have abused the complainant and threatened with dire consequences. Petitioners No.1 to 4 are in the habit of creating false documents and creating fictitious tenancy in respect of property belongs to other persons. She has sought to take legal action against petitioners No.1 to 4.

9. It is further stated that special officer of the

said Minister has forwarded the representation to the Police Commissioner, Mysore to take action as per law. The Mandi Mohalla Police have forwarded the complaint along with report to the Police Commissioner, Bengaluru. The petitioners apprehends that respondent police may Crl.Misc.No.3100/2024 register a criminal case against them and may arrest them for no fault.

10. The Investigating officer has filed report that

no complaint lodged and no FIR is registered against the petitioners in Chamarajapet police station.

11. On perusal of the documents annexed to the

petition provide that a civil suit in O.S. No.6740/2017 filed by petitioner No.5 against ten defendants is pending. The petitioners contend that accused No.8 is husband of the complainant. But petitioners No.1 to 4 are not parties in the said civil proceedings. The representation before the sitting MLA which is allegedly forwarded to the Commissioner of Police, Mysore is against petitioners No.1 to 4. But, so far no FIR is registered either against petitioners No.1 to 4 or against petitioner No.5. Moreover, the alleged offences punishable under Sections 368 and 420 are not Crl.Misc.No.3100/2024 punishable with either death penalty or imprisonment for life. In the normal course Police issue notice to the offenders calling upon them to co-operate with the enqiury or investigation. But, in the present case, no such notice under Section 41-A is so for received by the petitioners. Mere pendency of civil suit between the petitioner No.5 and husband of the complainant and others and filing of representation by the complainant before the sitting MLA cannot be taken as a serious apprehension of arrest by the respondent police.

12. Further, the petitioner has not produced

notice U/s.41(A) of Cr.P.C. to show that, without any authority, police have summoned him to the police station for enquiry. There is absolutely nothing on record to believe the reasonable apprehension of arrest on accusation of having committed non-bailable offences. To put it other way, the facts and circumstances does Crl.Misc.No.3100/2024 not fit within the four corners of Section 438 of Cr.P.C. No prima facie case made out by the petitioner to grant pre-arrest bail as sought for. Hence, point No.1 is answered in the Negative.

13. POINT NO.2: In view of the aforesaid

discussion, this court proceed to pass the following : O R D E R Anticipatory bail petition U/s.438 of Cr.P.C., filed by the petitioners No.1 to 5 is rejected. (Dictated to the Stenographer Grade-I transcribed by her, corrected by me and then pronounced in open court on this 6th day of April, 2024). (KALPANA M.S.) LXIV ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, CCH-65, BENGALURU CITY. Crl.Misc.No.3100/2024 Order pronounced in the open Court, vide separate Order:- O R D E R Anticipatory bail petition U/s.438 of Cr.P.C., filed by the petitioners No.1 to 5 is rejected. LXIV ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, CCH-65, BENGALURU CITY.