KABC010230022023
Presented on : 28-08-2023
Registered on : 28-08-2023
Decided on : 11-10-2023
Duration : 0 years, 1 months, 14 days
BEFORE THE LXVI ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS
JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY.
(CCH­67)
DATED: This the 11th day of October, 2023
PRESENT
Sri. S. NATARAJ., BAL., LLB.
LXVI Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru
Crl.Misc.No. 8372 of 2023
Petitioner :
A.Muniyappa,
S/o late Annayappa,
Aged about 66 years,
Occ: Farmer Chairman of
Karnataka
State
SC
&
ST
Commission,
R/at No.11, Manjeshambika Nilaya,
VB Layout, Venkateshwara School,
KR Puram, Bengaluru North,
Bengaluru 560 036.
(By Sri.M.R.Balakrishna, Adv.)
/Vs/
2
Respondent :
Crl.Misc.No.8372/2023
1. State by:
KR Puram Police Station,
Bengaluru.
(By Public Prosecutor.)
2. Station of Officer,
New Delhi Crime Brnach
Station, New Delhi 110001.
(Absentee)
Police
ORDERS ON BAIL APPLICATION FILED UNDER
SEC.438 OF Cr.P.C.
Petitioner/accused filed bail petition under Section 438
Cr.P.C seeking anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest in
Cr.No.22/2021 for the offences punishable under Sections
420, 468, 471, 506 of IPC registered by the 2nd respondent.
2. The petitioner case in brief are as follows:
He is innocent of the offence alleged. He has been
falsely implicated by the 2nd respondent police. The
allegations in the complaint and FIR are false. There is no
specific overt act against the petitioner. The ingredients of
the offences alleged are not attracted.

The entire
transaction had taken place between Dr.KJ Purushotham
Reddy, accused No.1 and his son Ankit. The petitioner has
not received any amount.

The allegations against the
Crl.Misc.No.8372/2023
3
petitioner that he had arranged meeting at Taj Hotel, MG
Road, Bangalore and he had threatened the complainant
on 6.11.2020 except the said allegations there is no other
allegations. The offence alleged are non bailable, triable by
Magistrate. The petitioner is a senior citizen, he is ready
and willing to co­operate with the investigation. The 2 nd
respondent has not issued notice under Section 41­A of
CrPC.

On
23.8.2023
the
2nd
respondent
called
the
petitioner through phone, he is apprehending arrest. The
case is registered at new Delhi, he is apprehending arrest
in Bangalore and prayed to allow the petition and grant
anticipatory bail for a period of one month enabling to
appear before the jurisdictional Court.
3. The respondent No.1 represented by the learned
Public Prosecutor filed objections along with report of IO
contending that the petition is not maintainable. The case
is registered at New Delhi. This court has no jurisdiction
to grant anticipatory bail. The petitioner has to approach
the High Court for anticipatory bail and prayed to dismiss
the petition.

Crl.Misc.No.8372/2023
4
2nd respondent notice served remained absent.
4. Heard the arguments of both sides and perused
the record.
5. Out of above said facts and circumstances of the
case, the points that arose for consideration are as under:
Point No.1: Whether the petitioner is entitled
for limited anticipatory bail in
Cr.No.22/2021 registered by the
2nd respondent at New Delhi?
Point No.2: What Order?
6. My answer to the above points are as under:
Point No.1: In the affirmative
Point No.2: As per the final order for the
following reasons.:
REASONS
7. Point No.1: Sri.G.M.Swamy had filed complaint
before
the
2nd
respondent
alleging
that
one
Dr.K.J.Purushotham Reddy was promised to be appointed
as Lft.General of Union Territory, as such on 7.1.2019
Dr.K.J.Purushotham
Reddy
transferred
a
sum
of
Rs.5,00,00,000/­ to the Firm of Ankit who is son of
accused No.1. Accused No.1 kept demanding more money,
5
Crl.Misc.No.8372/2023
on 4.2.2018 Praneth Kumar Reddy, the partner of
Dr.K.J.Purushotham Reddy transferred Rs.1,50,00,000/­
from his account to the account of Ankit, the accused No.1
is demanding balance amount.

On 8.3.2018 through
Online payment Rs.3 Crore was made by Purushotham
Reddy to Ankit and Rs.1 Crore was paid to Ankit at
Bangalore. After the said payment Ankit Reddy sent air
ticket to complainant for final talk in New Delhi. During
the course of meeting with Ankit, Rs.1 Crore cash was paid
by Purushotham Reddy and totally Rs.11,75,00,000/­
Crores from Ankit.
people.

Accused No.1 had cheated several
The letters given by accused No.1 are fake. On
13.1.2019 the petitioner allegedly arranging the meeting
threatened the complainant. Accused No.1 and his son
cheated the complainant and Purushotham Reddy. On the
basis of said complaint the 2nd respondent registered the
case under Section 420, 468, 471, 506 read with Section
34 IPC.
8. Admittedly, the 2nd respondent police registered
the complaint at New Delhi. Whether this Court has
Crl.Misc.No.8372/2023
6
jurisdiction to entertain the petition for anticipatory bail is
to be considered. As per the judgment of Hon’ble High
Court
of
1983
Karnataka
SCC
OnLine
Kar
206,
Dr.L.R.Naidu Vs State of Karnataka in para 12 of the
judgment has observed that;
“ Section 438 is a beneficial provision is required
to be considered in favour of citizen.

There is
nothing in the provision suggesting that it is only
the High Court or the court of Sessions within
whose jurisdiction the case is registered, that can
be
granted.

apprehending
The
view
arrest,
in
that
the
any
person
circumstances,
referred to in Section 438, can seek bail in the
Court, within whose jurisdiction he ordinarily
resides.”
9. If the above said principles are applied to the case
on hand, the petitioner is the
jurisdiction of this Court.

residing within
the
He has got apprehension of
arrest within the jurisdiction of this Court at the hands of
2nd respondent.
CrPC
has
Thus, this Court under Section 438 of
jurisdiction
anticipatory bail.

to
entertain
the
petition
for
Crl.Misc.No.8372/2023
7
10. In so for as merits of the case is concerned the
contents of allegations are against accused No.1 who
allegedly collected the amount from the complainant and
cheated him. In so for as the petitioner is concerned, he
allegedly arranged the meeting at Taj Hotel, Bangalore
where he has threatened.

There is no allegation of
payment of any amount to the petitioner or induced the
complainant fraudulently to make payment with intention
to cheat.

Thus, prima facie the alleged cheating is not
forthcoming against the petitioner.
11. The petitioner has contended that the notice
under Section 41­A CrPC is not issued by the 2 nd
respondent. Non issuance of notice is one of the ground
for grant of bail as per the judgment of Hon’ble Apex
Court in Satender Kumar Antil Vs CBI 2022 SCC
OnLine SC 825.
12. The offence alleged are not punishable with
death or life imprisonment, triable by Magistrate.

The
petitioner undertake to abide by the conditions.

The
custodial interrogation may not be required at this stage.

Crl.Misc.No.8372/2023
8
Considering the guidelines of Satenderkumar Antil case,
and facts and circumstances of the case, nature and
gravity of the offence and accusation levelled against the
petitioner, he is entitled for anticipatory bail. Accordingly
answer point in the affirmative.
13. POINT No.2:­ In view of findings given on point
No.1, this Court pass the following order.
ORDER
The
petition
filed
by
the
petitioner/
accused – A.Muniyappa, S/o Late Annaiappa
under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is allowed.
The petitioner is ordered to be released on
anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest in
Cr.No.22/2021
registered
by
the
2nd
respondent New Delhi Crime Branch Police
Station, under Sections 420, 468, 471, 506
read with Section 34 of IPC on execution of
personal bond for Rs.50,000/­ with one
surety for the like sum to the satisfaction of
the Investigation Officer subject to following
conditions.
1. The petitioner is directed to approach the
appropriate jurisdictional court in New Delhi
9
Crl.Misc.No.8372/2023
within a month and make an application,
this order of anticipatory bail will be in force
till such time as that court passes an order.
2. The petitioner/accused is also directed to
appear before the 2nd respondent police if an
when he is required in connection with this
case.
3. The petitioner/accused shall not interfere in
the investigation and co­operate with the
investigation.
(Dictated to the Judgment Writer directly on computer,
corrected by me and then pronounced in the open Court on
this the 11th day of October, 2023).
(S. NATARAJ),
LXVI Addl.CC & SJ, Bangalore.

10
Crl.Misc.No.8372/2023
The Order is pronounced in
the open Court (vide separate
Order).
ORDER
The petition filed by the
petitioner/
accused
–
A.Muniyappa,
S/o
Late
Annaiappa under Section 438
Cr.P.C. is allowed.
The petitioner is ordered to
be released on anticipatory bail
in the event of his arrest in
Cr.No.22/2021 registered by the
2nd respondent New Delhi Crime
Branch Police Station, under
Sections 420, 468, 471, 506
read with Section 34 of IPC on
execution of personal bond for
Rs.50,000/­ with one surety for
the like sum to the satisfaction
of the Investigation Officer
subject to following conditions.
1. The petitioner is directed to
approach
the
appropriate
jurisdictional court in New Delhi
within a month and make an
application,
this
order
of
anticipatory bail will be in force
till such time as that court
passes an order.
2. The petitioner/accused is also
directed to appear before the 2 nd
respondent police if an when he
is required in connection with
this case.

11
Crl.Misc.No.8372/2023
3. The petitioner/accused shall
not interfere in the investigation
and
co­operate
with
the
investigation.
LXVI Addl.CC & SJ,
Bangalore.

12
Crl.Misc.No.8372/2023