KABC010084782024 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.2994/2024 PETITIONER:- 1. YATIRAJ S. NAIDU, s/o Sampangi Naidu, Aged about 51 years, R/at No.210-43, 4th Cross, 2nd Stage, Karnataka Layout, Bhuvaneshwari Nagara, Bengaluru -560079. [Accused No.1]

2. KISHORE P. MANAY, s/o late Panduranga Manay, Aged about 56 years, R/at No.233, 15th 'C' Cross, 2nd Stage, 2nd Phase, Mahalakshmipuram, Bengaluru -560086. [Accused No.2]

(By Sri. BMS., Advocate) V/s. RESPONDENT:- STATE OF KARNATAKA, By Mahalakshmipuram Police Station, Bengaluru. (Rep. by Public Prosecutor) 2 Crl.Misc.No.2994/2024 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.1 and 2 in Crime No.86/2024 registered by the respondent Mahalakshmipuram police for the offence punishable under Sections 427, 420, 448 r/w Section 34 of IPC.

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

The complainant has lodged the complaint alleging that the complainant is a Managing Trustee of Dr.M.C. Modi Public Trust, on 13.03.2024 at about 10.30 am., to 11.00 am., the petitioner No.1 together with his accomplice have broken the trust gate and attempting brake the door on the pretext that the petitioner No.2 has leased out it, when the complainant resisted they ill-treated him, 3-4 days before the complainant has leased out some place to Mahila Sangha, the petitioner No.2 and others have also violence on them, since the complainant reported the said incident to the police, the petitioners threatened him, the petitioner No.2 claiming to be administrator of the trust is cheating the trust as well as public by using the trust seal and thereby defaming the trust. Alleging the same complainant has lodged the complaint. The police on receipt of the said complaint have registered a case in Crime No.86/2024 for the offences punishable under Sections 427, 420, 448 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 petitioners submit that the petitioner No.2 is an employee of the trust in question and depending upon the meager salary to be paid by the hospital management. Though there is no proper person to manage 3 Crl.Misc.No.2994/2024 the trust property, the petitioner is looking after and managing the hospital as well as trust properties by discharging his duties sincerely and faithfully and there are no remarks or complaints against the petitioners by any authority or the public against the petitioners with regard to misappropriation or mismanagement of the trust properties, such being the facts the petitioners could not be involved in the alleged offences. The petitioners submit that the complainant is no way related to the trust or its properties or to the petitioners, but even and then interfering with the management of the hospital and threatening the petitioners and other employees. Since the petitioners have complained the illegal and criminal acts of the complainant to the concerned authorities, the complainant with vengeance against the petitioner has lodged a false and fictitious complaint before the respondent police. The petitioners submit that the petitioners are the sincere, honest and trustworthy employee of the trust and not allowed the petitioner and his followers to grab the valuable property of the public trust, the complainant who has failed in his all attempts to knock off the trust property has hatched a plan and lodged the instant complaint against the petitioners to curtail them from discharging their duties. Such being the case the involvement of the petitioners in the offences are unimaginable. The petitioners submit that as per the complaint averments there are several civil disputes are pending between the complainant and the petitioners on the same allegations. Accordingly, on the earlier complaint of the complainant the same police have filed B report stating that there is no proof of committing the offences by the petitioners. The petitioners submit that there are lot of inconsistence statements in the complaint and the complainant has created and concocted a false story only with an intention to involve the petitioners in the criminal case. The petitioners submit that they are law abiding citizens and they are ready and willing to 4 Crl.Misc.No.2994/2024 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 are involved in the alleged commission of offences. The learned Public Prosecutor has also further contended that the offences alleged against the petitioners are grievous and the same is still at the 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:

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 petitioner counsel has addressed the

arguments contending that the petitioner No.2 is an employee of the trust in question and depending upon the meager salary to be paid by the hospital management and though there is no proper person to 5 Crl.Misc.No.2994/2024 manage the trust property, the petitioner is looking after and managing the hospital as well as trust properties by discharging his duties sincerely and faithfully and there are no remarks or complaints against the petitioners by any authority or the public against the petitioners with regard to misappropriation or mismanagement of the trust properties, such being the facts the petitioners could not be involved in the alleged offences. The petitioners counsel has also further contended that the complainant is no way related to the trust or its properties or to the petitioners, but even and then interfering with the management of the hospital and threatening the petitioners and other employees. Since the petitioners have complained the illegal and criminal acts of the complainant to the concerned authorities, the complainant with vengeance against the petitioner has lodged a false and fictitious complaint before the respondent police. The petitioners counsel has also further contended that the petitioners are the sincere, honest and trustworthy employee of the trust and not allowed the petitioner and his followers to grab the valuable property of the public trust, the complainant who has failed in his all attempts to knock off the trust property has hatched a plan and lodged the instant complaint against the petitioners to curtail them from discharging their duties. Such being the case the involvement of the petitioners in the offences are unimaginable. The petitioners counsel has also further contended that as per the complaint averments there are several civil disputes are pending between the complainant and the petitioners on the same allegations. Accordingly, on the earlier complaint of the complainant the same police have filed B report stating that there is no proof of committing the offences by the petitioners. The petitioners counsel has also further contended that there are lot of inconsistence statements in the complaint and the complainant has created and concocted a false story only with an intention to involve the petitioners 6 Crl.Misc.No.2994/2024 in the criminal case. The petitioners counsel has also further contended that they are law abiding citizens 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.

8. The learned Public Prosecutor has addressed the

arguments 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 are involved in the alleged commission of offences. The learned Public Prosecutor has also further contended that the offences alleged against the petitioners are grievous and the same is still at the 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 the complainant is a Managing Trustee of Dr. M.C.Modi Public Trust and the petitioner No.1 together with his accomplice, has broken the trust gate and attempting brake the door on the pretext that the petitioner No.2 has leased the property when the complainant resisted they ill-treated him, 3-4 days before the complainant has leased out said place to Mahila Sangha, the petitioner No.2 and others have also violence on them, since the complainant reported the said incident to the police, the petitioners have threatened him and the petitioner No.2 claiming to be administrator of the trust is cheating the trust as well as public by using the trust seal and thereby defaming the trust. The complainant has alleged that the petitioners 7 Crl.Misc.No.2994/2024 are working at Dr. M.C., Modi Eye hospital and the Dr. M.C.Modi during his life time has nominated the complainant as a prospective trustee vide rectified trust deed dated 04.05.1987 to the said trust and his nomination was canceled vide rectification deed dated 09.04.1992 the complainant was indulged in misappropriating and mismanaging the trust name and its properties. Dr. M.C.Modi himself has lodged several criminal complaints against the complainant and the said Dr. M.C.Modi died in the year 2005. Dr. M.C.Modi during his life time has appointed and nominated his only son Dr.Amarnath Modi and Sister- in-law Dr. Suvarna Modi as trustees of the aforesaid trust. The said Dr.Amarnath Modi and Dr. Suvarna Modi died without nominating any persons to the said trust. As per the rectification deed dated 09.04.1992 Dr. M.C.Modi has created the permanent supervisory committee consisting of the Duputy Commissioner, Bengaluru Urban District and Chief City Civil Judge, Bengaluru to supervise overall working and activities of the aforesaid trust. Accordingly the Misc.Petiton No.196/2014 is pending before the Chief City Civil Judge (CCH-1) for appointment of trustees to the said trust. The complainant has also contended that he has filed a civil suit in OS.No.777/2018 before the Hon'ble Court and in the said suit temporary injunction restraining the petitioners from entering into the eye hospital and the said application was dismissed by order dated 16.08.2019 and the said order was challenged before the Hon'ble High court of Karnataka in MFA No.6861/2019 and the same was also dismissed. The complainant alleging the said facts has lodged the present complaint. On perusal of the records it is noticed that the offences alleged against the petitioners are under Sections 427, 420, 448 r/w Section 34 of IPC. 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 8 Crl.Misc.No.2994/2024 conditions imposed by this court and also co-operate with the investigation. 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. In the present case as the case is still under the stage of investigation, at this stage it cannot be said that the petitioners are involved in the alleged offences and also with respect to the said trust there is also Misc.Petition No.196/2014 which is pending before City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru for appointment of the trustees to the aforesaid trust. As the case is still under the stage of investigation at this stage it cannot be said that the petitioners have committed the alleged offences and so also the petitioners having 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.1 & 2 under Section 438 Cr.P.C., is hereby allowed. 9 Crl.Misc.No.2994/2024 The respondent Mahalakshmipuram police are hereby directed to release the petitioners on bail in the event of their arrest in Crime No.86/2024 registered for the offence punishable under Sections 427, 420, 448 r/w Section 34 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.

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.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed 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.