KABC010078382024 Presented on : 20-00-2024 Registered on : 20-03-2024 Decided on : 03-04-2024 Duration : 0 years, 0 months, 13 days IN THE COURT OF THE LXIV ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH-65) AT BENGALURU) Dated this 3rd day of April 2023 -: 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.2803/2024 PETITIONER : A. Renuka, W/o late Rangaswamy, Aged about 54 years, R/at No.652, Old No.650, Lakkanna Building, Doddahatti Beedi, Peenya 1st Stage, Bengaluru-560 058. (By Sri. V.K. Suresh, Advocate) /Vs/ 2 Crl.Misc.No.2803/2024 RESPONDENT : State of Karnataka by Peenya Police Station, Bengaluru. (Rep. By Learned Public Prosecutor) ORDERS ON ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 438 OF CR.P.C. Petitioner/accused has filed this petition under Section 438 of Code Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred as Cr.P.C.,) seeking anticipatory bail in Cr.No.140/2024 of Peenya Police Station, Bengaluru for the offences punishable under Sections 468, 471 and 420 of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred as I.P.C.), pending on the file of XXXI-Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Bengaluru.

2. Learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the

State has filed objections statement along with report of the Investigating Officer, opposing the bail petition. 3 Crl.Misc.No.2803/2024

3. For the purpose of brevity, the facts

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

4. Heard arguments. Perused the authorities

relied upon by the learned counsel and the materials on record.

5. The points that arise for my consideration

are;

1. Whether petitioner/accused is entitled for grant of anticipatory bail under Section 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 Affirmative Point No.2: As per final order for the following:- 4 Crl.Misc.No.2803/2024 R E A S O N S

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

has produced certified copies of complaint, F.I.R. in Cr.No.140/2024, copy of Aadhar card, copy of summons issued by CCH-26, copy of plaint in O.S. No.1833/2024 and copy of case status of O.S. No.1833/2024. Perused the same.

8. It is alleged in the private complaint filed by

the complainant-Lakshmisha R. that, during 2011-12 the accused obtained electricity connection from BESCOM, Peenya Sub-Division, Peenya, to the property bearing No.107/08 standing in the name of his mother Siddagangamma by submitting concocted documents as she is the owner of the said property and committed fraud to the BESCOM. On the basis of the complaint, the Respondent police have registered a case in Cr.No.140/2024 and proceeded with investigation. 5 Crl.Misc.No.2803/2024

9. Learned counsel vehemently argued that,

petitioner/accused is innocent of the alleged offences. She has not committed the alleged offences. The petitioner is law abiding citizen. The said house property was constructed by her husband Rangaswamy and his sister Siddagangamma in Sy.No.107/8 and still part of said land is vacant. The complainant is son of Smt. Siddagangamma. The complainant with an intention to encroach the said property and to harass the petitioner and her family members lodged a police complaint. The complainant and others have already filed a suit for partition in O.S. No.1833/2024 pending for adjudication. The dispute is civil in nature. She is respectable person. The petitioner is ready and willing to abide by the terms and conditions that may be imposed by this court. There is serious apprehension of arrest. The respondent police are making hectic efforts to arrest the petitioner. The 6 Crl.Misc.No.2803/2024 learned counsel submits that, the petitioner has made out prima facie case for grant of pre-arrest bail.

10. At the out set, the alleged offences are triable

by Magistrate. The said offences are neither punishable with death penalty nor imprisonment for life. The commission of offences by the petitioner is required to be established during trial. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the decision of State of Rajasthan, Jaipur V/s. Balachandh @ Baliay (AIR 1977 SC 2447) and in catena of decisions pleased to laid down the legal doctrine that "Bail is a rule and jail is an exception". This legal doctrine is laid down for safeguarding fundamental right under Article 21 of Constitution of India, granting the right to life and liberty.

11. The offence alleged against the petitioner is

punishable under 420 of I.P.C. and other allied offence. It is settled law that, in a case of this nature, custodial 7 Crl.Misc.No.2803/2024 interrogation is not warranted. In the decision reported in AIR 2023 Supreme Court 1570: AIR Online 2023 SC 198 in a case of Mahdoom Bava V/s.Central Bureadu of Investigation, the Hon'ble Court pleased to observe that; Criminal P.C. (2 of 1974) S.438 – Anticipatory bail – Entitlement – Offences U/Ss. 420, 467, 468, 471 R/w.Sec.120B of I.P.C. and S.13(3) R/w.Sec. 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act – CBI did not require the custodial interrogation of accused persons during investigationCBI only wanted the presence of accused persons before trial court to face trialTherefore to oppose the anticipatory bail request may not be proper – When case was primarily based on documentary evidence, arrest of accused persons was not warrantedEleven cases were registered against prime accused but those cases were not relevant for adjudicating the present matter. Accused persons apprehended that they may be remanded to custody by trial courtAnticipatory bail granted. The ratio laid down in the cited decision is squarely applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case. 8 Crl.Misc.No.2803/2024

12. It is pertinent to note that, the petitioner is

woman and proviso to 437 of Code is applicable to her. In this context, it is profitable to refer the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in Kavitha V. State of Karnataka – Crl.P.No.2509/2019 decided on 05.08.2019, the Hon'ble Court pleased to observe as under; “In the above facts and circumstances of the case, proviso to Section 432 of Cr.P.C. would come to the help of the petitioner herein. Even at this stage, if the court comes to the conclusion that, a strong prima facie case is made out against a woman, still the court can exercise its discretion and it may enlarge a lady on bail with conditions. Though the petition is filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., the proviso to section 437 can be equally made use of. The said proviso says that, even if there appears reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is guilty of the offences punishable with death or imprisonment for life, provided the court may direct that the person referred to in Clause (i) or Clause (ii), be released on bail, if such person is under the age of sixteen years or is a woman or is sick or infirm. 9 Crl.Misc.No.2803/2024 Therefore, in the above circumstances, in my opinion, as the petitioner/ accused has been in jail since 05.01.2019 and the charge sheet has already been filed, she is entitled to be enlarged on bail during the trial, with certain conditions……….”

13. In the decision reported in Rathnawwa

and another V/s.State of Karnataka Crl.P. No.100503/2017 decided on 13.3.2014, the Hon'ble court pleased to observe that; “ The proviso in section 437 of Code of Criminal Procedure1973 (hereinafter referred to as “Cr.P.C.”for brevity) empowers the court that even if the offences which are punishable with death or imprisonment for life or imprisonment for life or imprisonment for seven years or more, the court may direct that such a person referred to in clause – (I) or (ii) of Section 437 of Cr.P.C. be released on bail, it is satisfied that if such person is under the age of 16 years or is a woman or is sick or infirm. Therefore, it is a special proviso appended to Section 437 of Cr.P.C. particularly, considering the woman folk, sick and infirm persons and the persons, who are less than 16 years.” 10 Crl.Misc.No.2803/2024 In view of the principles laid down in the above decision, woman and sick, aged persons are entitled to be released on bail, even in cases of offences punishable under death or imprisonment for life, as those categories of offenders falls within the purview of proviso to Section 437 of Cr.P.C.

14. It is forthcoming from the materials on record

that, the civil dispute is pending between the parties. This court finds substance in the line of arguments that, complainant has given the colour of criminal case to pressurize the petitioner. There is no criminal antecedents. The petitioner has permanent place of abode at Bengaluru. There is remote chances of flee from justice. The authorities relied by the petitioner provide that, in a case of this nature granting of bail with conditions serve the purpose. Under these facts and circumstances and in view of the law laid down by 11 Crl.Misc.No.2803/2024 Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Satender Kumar Antil V/s.Central Bureau of Investigation in Miscellaneous Application No.1849/2021 dated 11.07.2022, I am of the opinion that, to struck the balance between individual liberty and humiliation due to unjustifiable detention against free and fair trial as well as welfare of society, it is proper to enlarge the petitioner on bail by imposing appropriate terms and conditions. Accordingly, point No.1 is answered in the Affirmative.

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

discussion, this court proceed to pass the following : O R D E R Anticipatory bail petition under Section 438 of Cr.P.C., filed by the petitioner/accused is allowed. Respondent police is directed to release the petitioner on bail in the event of her arrest 12 Crl.Misc.No.2803/2024 in Cr.No.140/2024 of Peenya police station, Bengaluru for the offences punishable under Sections 468, 471 and 420 of I.P.C., pending on the file of XXXI-Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Bengaluru by taking personal bond for ₹.50,000/- (fifty thousand) with two sureties for like sum on following conditions;

1. Petitioner/accused shall appear before

Investigating Officer and co-operate with investigation within 15 days from the date of this order and make themselves available for investigation as and when called by the Investigating Officer.

2. She shall furnish documents regarding her address proof, the

address proof of her sureties and their Aadhar cards at the time of furnishing sureties.

3. She shall mark her attendance at

respondent police station on 1st and 3rd 13 Crl.Misc.No.2803/2024 Sunday of every month between 10.00 a.m. and 2.00 p.m., till conclusion of investigation or for a period of 3 months, whichever is earlier.

4. She shall not directly or indirectly

make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade them from disclosing such facts either to the Investigation Officer or to the trial court.

5. She shall not leave the jurisdiction of India without prior permission of the

trial court.

6. She shall not involve in any criminal

activities.

7. In the event any change in the

residential address, petitioner and her sureties shall intimate the same to the trial court immediately without fail. 14 Crl.Misc.No.2803/2024 Violation of any of these conditions would entitle cancellation of bail. (Dictated to the Stenographer Grade-I directly on computer, typed by her, then corrected, signed and pronounced by me in open court on this 3rd day of April 2024). (KALPANA M.S.) LXIV ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, CCH-65, BENGALURU CITY. 15 Crl.Misc.No.2803/2024 Order pronounced in the open Court, vide separate Order:- O R D E R Anticipatory bail petition under Section 438 of Cr.P.C., filed by the petitioner/accused is allowed. 16 Crl.Misc.No.2803/2024 Respondent police is directed to release the petitioner on bail in the event of her arrest in Cr.No.140/2024 of Peenya police station, Bengaluru for the offences punishable under Sections 468, 471 and 420 of I.P.C., pending on the file of XXXI-Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Bengaluru by taking personal bond for ₹.50,000/- (fifty thousand) with two sureties for like sum on following conditions;

1. Petitioner/accused shall appear before Investigating Officer and co-operate with investigation within 15 days from the date of this order and make themselves available for investigation as and when called by the Investigating Officer.

2. She shall furnish documents regarding her address proof, the address proof of her sureties and 17 Crl.Misc.No.2803/2024

their Aadhar cards at the time of furnishing sureties.

3. She shall mark her attendance at respondent police station on 1st and 3rd Sunday of every month between 10.00 a.m. and 2.00 p.m., till conclusion of investigation or for a period of 3 months, whichever is earlier.

4. She shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade them from disclosing such facts either to the Investigation Officer or to the trial court.

5. She shall not leave the jurisdiction of India without prior permission of the trial court.

6. She shall not involve in any criminal activities.

7. In the event any change in the residential address, petitioner and her sureties shall intimate the same to the trial court immediately without fail. 18 Crl.Misc.No.2803/2024

Violation of any of these conditions would entitle cancellation of bail. Consequently, this criminal miscellaneous proceedings is disposed of. LXIV ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, CCH-65, BENGALURU CITY.