KABC010079852024 IN THE COURT OF THE XLIV ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH 45) AND HOLDING INCHARGE CHARGE OF LXIX ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH 70) BANGALORE CITY Dated this the 7th day of May, 2024 PRESENT Sri. Doddegowda. K., B.A.,LL.B, XLIV Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge (CCH 45) and also holding incharge of the court of 69th Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge (CCH 70). Crl.Misc.No.2845 /2024 PETITIONERS Tyagaraju S/o Late Chinnappa aged about 47 years, R/at no.232, 1st Main Road Side, Near Star Bazar, 7th Block, Kormangala Bengaluru (Accused No.11) (By Sri.B.B. Advocate) V/s DEFENDANT : State of Karnataka by SHO, Halsurugate P.S. Bengaluru City Reptd By PP ORDER ON PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION 438 of Cr.P.C The petitioner being accused No.11 in Cr. No. 346/2023 has filed this petition under Section 438 of Cr.P.C seeking his release on bail, in the event of his arrest by the respondent police for the offences punishable under Section 419, 420, 465, 468, 471 r/w Sec.34 of the IPC registered on the file of respondent.

2. It is contended by the petitioner that he is

innocent of alleged offences, he neither directly nor indirectly committed any offence muchless the alleged offences. The respondent police even without conducting preliminary enquiry as required under law, have registered FIR against him and other accused. The alleged offences are neither punishable with death nor imprisonment for life. The petitioner is implicated in the case. He is a permanent resident of the address mentioned in the cause title and having deep roots in the society and has no bad antecedents and also ready to abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this court, in the event of his release on bail. Specific overtacts against the petitioner is conspicuously missing in the complaint. Accordingly, for the reasons detailed in the petition, the petitioner sought to allow the petition.

3. Per contra, the learned public prosecutor

appearing for the respondent filed detailed objections by reiterating the averments of the complaint and argued that the alleged offences are serious in nature, there is specific overt-acts against the petitioner. There is likelihood of the petitioner repeating the similar offences in the event of his release on his bail at this stage. It is further contended that there is every chance of the petitioner threatening the complainant in particular and other witnesses in general in the event of his release. Accordingly, for the reasons detailed in the objection statement, the learned PP prays to dismiss the petition.

4. Having heard the arguments of both side and

upon perusal of the material available on record, now the point that arise for consideration of this court is:-

1. Whether the petition filed under

Sec.438 of Cr.P.C deserves to be allowed?

2. What order?

5. The findings of this court to the aforesaid points

is as under:- Point No.1: In the Affirmative Point No.2: As per the final order for the following:-

REASONS

6. It is the specific case of the complainant in brief

that, on 12.12.2023, when he was on his duty at 5:00 p.m received the credible information around 8 to 9 unknown persons have created the duplicate Aadhaar Cards, RTC Forms, Sale Deeds and Mutation Register Extracts and they intend to use the said documents for furnishing sureties in the Courts and upon receipt of the said information the complainant along with his staff and other officers rushed to the spot situated at K.G. Road, near Mysore Bank Circle and found the above stated documents and seized them in the presence of panchas and thereafter, conducted investigation, recorded the statement of the witnesses and submitted charge sheet against the petitioner and other accused for the offences punishable U/s. 419, 420, 465, 468, 471 r/w 34 of IPC. Hence, the petitioner is before this Court for necessary orders.

7. It is contended by the petitioner that he is

innocent of the alleged offences and he neither directly nor indirectly committed any offence muchless the alleged offences. Whether or not the petitioner has committed the alleged offences is to be seen during the full fledged trial. Now, it is to be seen whether the petitioner has made out justifiable grounds to allow the petition and is available for investigation and trial in the event of his release on bail at this stage. No doubt, the alleged offences are triable by the learned Magistrate. The petitioner has contended that he is ready to abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this court. It is further contended that the accused No. 1 to 10 have already been enlarged on bail U/s. 437 and 438 of Cr.P.C. and he being the accused No.11 in the alleged crime is entitled to be released on bail on the ground of parity. The cause title to the petition discloses that the petitioner is a permanent resident of address stated in the cause title and there is nothing on record to show the bad antecedents of the petitioner. As discussed herein above, the alleged offences are triable by the Learned Magistrate. Since, the entire case is based on documentary evidence and as investigation in the case has already been completed, custodial interrogation of the petitioner appears to be not necessary. The apprehension of the learned public prosecutor that the petitioner may not be available for investigation and trial in the event of his release on bail at this stage, could be met by imposing stringent conditions.

8. This court is conscious of the settled position of

law that the extraordinary jurisdiction under Section 438 of Cr.P.C is to be exercised sparingly, in exceptional circumstances, considering the nature and gravity of the offences. It is equally settled position of law that the Court shall strike a balance between the liberty of the individual and interest of the society while considering the bail petitions. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in a ruling reporting in (2014) 8 SCC 273 in the case of Arnesh Kumar V/s. State of Bihar has held that the Courts should not casually and mechanically order for detention of the accused where the alleged offences are punishable with less than 7 years. Similarly the Hon’ble Supreme Court in its recent ruling reported in (2022) 10 SCC 51 in the case of Sathender Kumar Antil V/s Central Bureau of Investigation has held as follows: “ L. Criminal Procedure Code, 1973-Ss. 437 to 439-Bail-Principle that bail is the rule and jail is the exception and legal position regarding presumption of innocence, being a facet of Art. 21 of the Constitution, shall inure to the benefit of the accused”.

9. As discussed herein above, accused No. 1 to 9

have already been released on bail by the learned Magistrate U/s. 437 of Cr.P.C. Accused No.10 has been released on bail vide order dated 15.03.2024 in Crl.Misc. No. 2018/2024. As rightly argued by the counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner being accused No.11 in the alleged crime is entitled to be released on bail on the ground of parity. That apart, in the instant case investigation in the case has already been completed and charge sheet is filed. Hence, in the facts and circumstance of the case, considering the fact that the alleged offences are triable by learned Magistrate and on account of the fact that the petitioner has permanent place of abode and the apprehension of the public prosecutor could be met by imposing stringent conditions and also on account of the fact that similarly placed accused No.1 to 10 have already been released on bail, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petition deserves to be allowed by imposing stringent conditions to meet the apprehension of the learned Public Prosecutor and to secure the presence of the petitioner for trial. Accordingly, the point for consideration is answered in the Affirmative.

10. Point No.2. In view of the forging discussion on

point No.1 and the findings there on, this Court proceeds to pass the following:

ORDER

The petition filed U/s.438 of Cr.P.C. is hereby allowed. The petitioner shall be released on bail, in the event of his arrest by the respondent police in Cr. No. 346/2023 (CC No. 3531/2024) for the offences punishable U/s. 419, 419, 420, 465, 468, 471 r/w 34 of IPC, on obtaining his personal bond for Rs. 1,00,000/- with two sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the investigating officer, subject to the following conditions:

1. The petitioner shall make himself available

for investigation and he shall appear before the IO as and when required for investigation.

2. The petitioner shall not make directly or indirectly any inducement, threat to the

complainant in particular and other witnesses in general.

3. The petitioner shall not commit any offence similar to the offences of which he is

accused of or suspected.

4. The petitioner shall appear before the IO

within 15 days from the date of this order.

5. The petitioner shall appear before the trial

court and furnish sureties to the satisfaction of that Court within one month from the date of this order. (Dictated to the Stenographer Grade-III, transcript thereof is corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in open court on this the 7th day of May, 2024) (Doddegowda. K) XLIV Addl. CC & SJ Bangalore. I/c. LXIX Addl. CC & SJ Bangalore.