KABC010159532022
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 20 th day of June, 2022
Crl.Misc.No.5940/2022
PETITIONER/S:-
SRI. A.M. HANUMANTHEGOWDA,
s/o late Muniyappa,
Aged about 48 years,
R/at No.164/1, Sri Lakshmi Nursery Farm,
Ullalu Village, Ullalu Post, 100 feet Road,
4th Block, Sir M. Visveshwaraiah Layout,
Bengaluru-560110.
(By Sri. N., Advocate)
V/s.

RESPONDENT/S:-
STATE OF KARNATAKA,
By Sheshadripuram Police Station,
Bengaluru.
(Rep. by Public Prosecutor)
2
Crl.Misc.No.5940/2022
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 petitioner in Crime No.85/2022 registered by the
respondent Sheshadripuram police for offences punishable under
Sections 427, 448, 420, 384, 504, 506 r/w Section 34 of IPC.
2.

Brief facts of the case.-
The complainant Smt. V.A. Devaki has filed the complaint
alleging that she has purchased the site No.2191/4, 5th Block, Sir M.
Vishveshwaraiah Layout, Bengaluru, from the petitioner through
registered sale deed in the year 2012 and the khatha of the said site is
standing in the name of complainant. As on the date of selling the site
by the petitioner, the petitioner had constructed the shed and has
handed over the possession to the complainant and the complainant
has been in possession and enjoyment of the said site along with shed
and also the electricity power has also been provided to the said shed
which has been transferred in the name of complainant.

The
complainant has further alleged that the petitioner and others are
demanding Rs.1,00,00,000/- from the complainant failing which he will
file a suit in civil court for depriving the complainant’s right in the site.
During the last week of May, 2022 the petitioner had called the
complainant to the office of the BDA to resolve the dispute, when the
complainant met the petitioner, Ravi, Devaraj and others have
demanded Rs.1,00,00,000/- from the complainant failing to pay they
will deprive the complainant’s right over the property wherein the
Crl.Misc.No.5940/2022
3
complainant has replied that do not commit criminal breach of trust as I
have purchased the site for consideration for which the petitioner was
abused in filthy language and threatened her for life and also they
have damage the lock of the shed and they are interfering illegally in
the site belonging to the complainant with malafide intention to cheat
the complainant.

As such the complainant has lodged the complaint
before the police. The jurisdictional police on receipt of the complaint
have registered the case in Crime No.85/2022 for the offences under
Sections 427, 448, 420, 384, 504, 506 r/w Section 34 of IPC.
3.

The petitioner being aggrieved by the same has filed the
present petition seeking anticipatory bail on the following among other
grounds. The petitioner submits that the value of the property is less
than
Rs.1,00,00,000/-
and
the
petitioner
has
not
demanded
Rs.1,00,00,000/- for the site already sold in favour of the complainant
in the year 2012. The petitioner has also not filed any suit claiming
ownership over the said site belong to the complainant nor interfered
with the complainant’s possession nor broke open the lock and caused
damage to the complainant’s property nor threatened the complainant
calling her to BDA office at any point of time. The petitioner submits
that Karnataka Vidhanasabha Assembly election is coming fast the
BDA Chairman Sri. S.R. Vishwantha in order to prevent the petitioner
from contesting the election against him from Yelahanka constituency
indulged in filing series of complaints against the petitioner.

The
petitioner further submits that at the instance of BDA Chairman
Sri.S.R. Vishwanath, the Special Task Force and Vigilance, BDA has
Crl.Misc.No.5940/2022
4
filed the false complaint against the petitioner in Crime No.29/2022 for
which
the
petitioner
Crl.Misc.No.1198/2022.

was
granted
anticipatory
bail
in
The petitioner further submits that he is
innocent of the alleged offences and he is permanent resident of Ullalu
and further submits that he is ready and willing to co-operate with the
investigation and also ready and willing to abide by the conditions
imposed by this court. Hence, prays to allow the bail petition.
4.

After service of notice, the learned Public Prosecutor has
filed objection contending that on 12.06.2022 the complainant has
lodged the complaint alleging that she had purchased the property
from the petitioner in the year 2012, the property bearing No.2191/4,
5th Block, Sir M. Vishveshwaraiah Layout, Bengaluru. The learned
Public Prosecutor has also further contended that the possession of
the said property was handed over to the complainant and the
complainant was running the restaurant in the year 2020, due to
COVID-19 the restaurant was closed and after lapse of 10 years the
accused No.1 and his relatives in the month of April, to extract more
money from the complainant they had illegally entered into the
premises and locked the shed by breaking open the lock and also has
kept one Ravi in the said shed and further contended that the accused
No.1 called the complainant to the BDA office and threatened the
complainant with dire consequences and to pay extra money. The
learned Public Prosecutor has also further contended that there is also
another criminal case pending against the accused No.1/ petitioner
and also the case is still under the stage of investigation and if the
5
Crl.Misc.No.5940/2022
accused is granted bail there is every chances of absconding and
threatening the prosecution witnesses and hampering the trial. Hence,
prays to reject the bail petition.
5.

Heard the arguments. Now the points that arise for my
consideration.-
6.

1.

Whether the petitioner has made out
sufficient ground to allow the petition
under Section 438 of Cr.P.C?

2.

What order?

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 counsel for petitioner has addressed
the arguments contending that the he has sold the property in the year
2012 and from the year 2012 till today there was no complaint filed
against the complainant. The complainant was in possession of the
said property and all the revenue records are standing in the name of
the complainant. The petitioner counsel has also contended that he
has not interfered with the possession of the complainant nor broke
open the lock and damage the property nor he has been involved in
the alleged offences as alleged by the complainant. The petitioner
counsel has further contended that the present complaint is filed at the
instance of Sri. S.R. Vishwanath, in order to prevent the petitioner
6
Crl.Misc.No.5940/2022
from contesting the Karnataka Vidhanasabha election against him.
The petitioner counsel has also further contended that the said Sri.
Vishwanath, BDA Chairman on his instance, the Special Task Force
and Vigilance, BDA has filed the false complaint against the petitioner
in Crime No.29/2022 and for the same the petitioner has obtained
anticipatory bail in Crl.Misc.No.1198/2022. The petitioner counsel has
further submits that the complainant is not resident of Sheshadripuram
and she is the resident of Hiriyur Taluk, Chitradurga District and the
site purchased by her from the petitioner is situated at Sir M.
Visheweshwaraiah layout, 5th Block, Bengaluru, which comes under
Jnanabharathi police station limits and also further contended that the
petitioner is not going to BDA nor employee of the BDA. The petitioner
counsel has also further contended that the complainant has filed false
complaint at Sheshadripuram police station within whose jurisdiction
the BDA office is situated which shows the malafide intention by the
complainant against the petitioner. The petitioner counsel has further
contended that the petitioner is the innocent of the alleged offences
and he is ready and willing to abide by the conditions imposed by this
court. Hence, prays to allow the bail petition.
8.

The learned Public Prosecutor has addressed the
arguments contending that though the petitioner has sold the alleged
property in the year 2012 and the petitioner and his relative are
interfering with the possession of the complainant and also in the
month of April, the petitioner and his relatives illegally entered the
premises and has damaged the property and locked the shed and also
7
Crl.Misc.No.5940/2022
the petitioner had called the complainant to the BDA office wherein
they have threatened and asked for extra money as such the
complaint filed by the complainant before the jurisdictional police. The
learned Public Prosecutor has also further contended that the
petitioner and others have threatened the complainant with dire
consequences. As such if the petitioner is released on bail there is
every chances of threatening the prosecution witnesses and
hampering the trial and also the petitioner might abscond and the case
is still at the stage of investigation. Hence, prays to reject the bail
petition.
9.

On perusal of the records produced by the petitioner and
the prosecution it is noticed that the complaint has been lodged by the
complainant on 12.06.2022 before the Sheshadripuram police station.
The allegation against the petitioner is that he had sold the property at
Vishveshwaraiah Layout to the complainant in the year 2012 and the
complainant was running the hotel in the said site premises and during
the COVID-19 period, the said restaurant was closed in the month of
April, 2022. The petitioner and others have illegally entered into the
premises of the complainant and have damaged the lock and have
illegally entered the shed and lock the shed and also further the
petitioner No.1 has called the complainant to the BDA office and they
have threatened the complainant at the BDA office and have
demanded to pay Rs.1,00,00,000/- and also they have threatened the
complainant with dire consequences as such the complaint has been
filed. On perusal of the complaint it is noticed that the offences alleged
8
Crl.Misc.No.5940/2022
against the petitioner is that he has entered into the premises and
damage the property was in the month of April-2022 as such the
complaint has been filed on 12.06.2022 alleging that in the month of
May-2022 the petitioner had called to the complainant to BDA office
wherein they have threatened the complainant and have demanded
Rs.1,00,000/- and also threatened the complainant with dire
consequences as such the complaint is filed on 12.06.2022 whereas
the the offence which the complainant has alleged earlier is in the
month of April-2022 that is with respect to trespassing and damaging
the site of the complainant wherein the said property comes within the
jurisdiction of Jnanabharathi police station and so also no complaint
was filed alleging the said incident earlier. The complainant has only
filed the complaint in the month of June-2022 alleging that the
petitioner had called her to BDA office and has threatened the
complainant with dire consequences and demanded money of
Rs.1,00,00,000/- to settle the dispute with respect to the property
situated at Vishveshwaraiah Layout.

The complainant with an
intention to bring the jurisdiction within Sheshadripuram police station
has lodged the complaint alleging the said incident. On perusal of the
complaint it is noticed that the petitioner has sold the property in the
year 2012 for sale consideration of Rs.48,00,000/- and also as per the
complaint averments the khatha and other revenue records has been
transferred in the name of complainant and as such she is in
possession of the said property from the year 2012. The petitioner has
also produced the copy of the bail petition in Crl.Misc.No.1198/2022
wherein the Special Task Force & Vigilance has lodged the complaint
9
Crl.Misc.No.5940/2022
against the petitioner and this court has granted anticipatory bail to the
petitioner in Crl.Misc.No.1198/2022. In the present case the police
have issued notice to the petitioner dated 11.06.2022 alleging that the
complainant has lodged the complaint against the petitioner with
respect to the alleged offence whereas on perusal of the complaint it is
noticed that the complainant has lodged the complaint on 12.06.2022
wherein it is after issuance of notice by the police, as such it shows
that the police has issued the notice without the receipt of the
complaint only with malafide intention and the complaint has been
lodged on 12.06.2022 on the same day the complaint has been
registered in Crime No.85/2022 at 16.00 hours for the offences under
Sections 427, 448, 420, 384, 504, 506 r/w Section 34 of IPC. The
offences alleged against the petitioner is not punishable with
imprisonment for life or death.

The only apprehension of the
prosecution is that if the bail is granted to the petitioner, there is every
chances of the petitioner threatening the complainant and the
prosecution witnesses and may abscond and hamper the trial. The
said apprehension of the prosecution can be satisfied by imposing
stringent conditions.

Admittedly, the petitioner is 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 petitioner, he can be dealt
with in accordance with law. Considering all these facts, I am of the
opinion that the petitioner 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
10.

Crl.Misc.No.5940/2022
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 petitioner under
Section 438 Cr.P.C., is allowed.
The respondent
Sheshadripuram police
are directed to release the petitioner on bail in
the event of his arrest in Crime No.85/2022
registered for the offences punishable under
Sections 427, 448, 420, 384, 504, 506 r/w
Section 34 of IPC, on execution of personal
bond for Rs.1,00,000/- with one surety for the
likesum subject to the following
CONDITIONS:1.

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

2.

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

3.

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

4.

The petitioner shall not involve in any
criminal activity.

11
Crl.Misc.No.5940/2022
(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and then pronounced
by me in the Open Court on this 20th day of June, 2022)
(HEMANTH KUMAR. C.R)
LXV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru.