KABC010017052023
IN THE COURT OF THE LXIII ADDL.CITY CIVIL &
SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH-64) AT BENGALURU
Dated this the 30th day of January 2023
: PRESENT :
Sri.A.V.Patil, B.Com., LL.B.,
LXIII ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS
JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY.
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS NO.539/2023
PETITIONERS
:
1.

Amruth Shetty
S/o Shankar P. Shetty,
Aged about 40 years,
Residing at No.310,
3rd Floor, Krishna Apartment,
No.12, 1st Main, Chikkaadugodi,
Bengaluru.

2.

Mohan Rao.B
S/o Venkatakrishna,
Aged about 55 years,
Residing at No.61,
Jayanna House, 8th Main,
1st Cross, Hosur Main Road,
Hosapalya, Bommanahalli,
Bengaluru Ц 68.
(By Sri.Yogananda Raju M.D.,
Advocate)
2
Crl.Misc.No.539/2023
– Vs RESPONDENT
:
State by Kumaraswamy Layout
Police Station, Bengaluru.
(By Public Prosecutor)
ORDER
The petitioners have filed this petition u/s 438 of
Cr.P.C., for release on bail in the event of their arrest in
connection with a case registered in Cr.No.362/2022 of
respondent Police Station for the offences punishable
u/s 406, 419, 420, 463, 464, 468, 120(A) of IPC.
2.

It is stated in the bail application that the
petitioners are innocents and have not committed any
offences as alleged in the complaint. The petitioner has
applied for loan for the purpose of purchasing the flat in
the
year
2019
to
the
complainant
Bank.

The
complainant Bank officials after verifying all the
documents produced by the petitioners, has approved
the
loan
and
sanctioned
an
amount
of
Rs.1,44,00,000/-. The petitioners are paying monthly
EMI every month. The petitioners have not forged any
documents as alleged in the complaint. Due to Covid19, they were not able to make regular payments. The
3
alleged
offences
are
based
Crl.Misc.No.539/2023
on
the
documentary
evidence. The offences alleged against the petitioners
are not punishable either with death or imprisonment
for life and are triable by the Court of Magistrate. They
are ready and willing to abide by the terms and
conditions imposed while releasing them on bail. In
view of registering of FIR, they apprehend their arrest.
Hence, prayed to grant anticipatory bail.
3.

The learned P.P. has opposed the bail application
by filing the objections statement. According to him, the
materials collected during the investigation prima-facie
disclose that the petitioners have committed the
offences alleged against them. Hence, prayed to dismiss
the bail petition filed by the petitioners.
4.

Heard the arguments from learned Counsel for
petitioners and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the
materials placed on record.
5.

The points that arise for my consideration are:
1. Whether the petitioners are entitled for
anticipatory bail as prayed in the
application filed under Sec.438 of Cr.P.C.?
2. What order?

6.

My answer to the above points are as follows:
4
Crl.Misc.No.539/2023
Point No.1: In the affirmative
Point No.2: As per final order for the following;
REASONS
7.

Point No.1:- The Chief Manager Sri.P.V.Sambasiva
Rao P.V., Karur Vysya Bank Ltd., lodged the complaint
against the accused No.1 to 5, alleging that accused
No.1 is the borrower, accused No.2 is the guarantor,
accused No.5/petitioner is a Tax consultant. Accused
No.1 is carrying a business as a Proprietor of M/s
Nigmetha Info Tech and has all eligibility to borrow the
loan from the complainant Bank. The accused No.1
represented that he intends to purchase the residential
flat bearing No.180/29B, also known as Unit No.1.
with basement, ground, first and second floor, situated
at S.Madahalli, Handenahalli village, Sarjapura Hobli,
Anekal Taluk, Bengaluru Urban District and negotiated
for purchase of residential flat for Rs.1,80,88,000/- and
sought loan from the complainant Bank to the tune of
Rs.1,44,00,000/-. Along with the loan application, has
also filed copy of Income Tax Returns, Title Deeds etc.
After verification, sanctioned the loan in the year 201920.

The
said
loan
account
became
NPA
as
on
23.03.2021. Thereafter, the complainant came to know
that accused No.1 and 2 have produced false and
5
Crl.Misc.No.539/2023
created IT documents to the complainant only for the
purpose of obtaining the loan. Accused No.1 to 5
conspired together to do an illegal act to induce the
complainant Bank to sanction a huge loan amount of
Rs.1,44,00,000/-, for which accused No.1 is not eligible.
Accused No.1 has furnished fabricated the Income Tax
Returns to the complainant Bank. The petitioners
knowingly furnished the fabricated IT Returns and
other related documents in order to defraud and cheat
the complainant Bank. According to the complainant,
the accused have committed the criminal breach of
trust, filing false and created documents in order to
cheat the complainant. Hence, the complainant filed the
complaint. On the basis of the complaint, the FIR was
registered against the accused persons for the aforesaid
offences.
8.

At the outset it is material to note that though
offences punishable u/s 406, 420, 468 of IPC are non
bailable in nature, are not punishable with death or life
imprisonment. After verification of all the documents
the
bank
officials
sanctioned
the
loan
but
no
complainant is filed. The involvement of petitioners is
yet to be proved. The case of the complainant is based
6
on
documentary
evidence.

Crl.Misc.No.539/2023
The
truth
is
to
be
ascertained during the course of trial. There is delay in
filing of complaint. Moreover, the offences alleged
against
the
petitioners
are
triable
by
Court
of
Magistrate. The petitioners are ready to furnish surety
and ready to abide by the conditions that may be
imposed by this Court while passing the order. As per
the averments of bail application, the petitioners are
the permanent resident of the address shown in the
petition. The offences alleged against the petitioners are
cognizable offences and as per the provisions of Cr.P.C.
the I.O. may arrest the petitioners without warrant. The
apprehension of the prosecution can be taken care of by
putting suitable conditions. Having regards to the facts
and circumstances of the case, gravity of the offences
alleged, punishment prescribed for them, petitioners
are
the
permanent
residents
of
Bengaluru
and
apprehension of the arrest of the petitioners by the I.O.
in the considered opinion of this Court the petitioners
are entitled to grant anticipatory bail by imposing
appropriate conditions. Accordingly, I answer this point
in the affirmative.
9.

Point No.2:- In view of my findings on Point No.1,
7
Crl.Misc.No.539/2023
I proceed to pass the following;
ORDER
The bail petition filed by petitioners u/s 438
of Cr.P.C is hereby allowed and anticipatory bail
is granted.
In the event of their arrest by the I.O. in
Crime No.362/2022 of Kumaraswamy Layout
Police Station, is directed to enlarge them on bail
on executing their personal bond for Rs.70,000/each with one surety for like sum subject to
following conditions:
1. Petitioners shall appear before the
respondent Police within 20 days from
the date of this order.
2. Petitioners shall not tamper with the
prosecution witnesses in any manner.
3. Petitioners shall appear before the Court
during trial and co-operate for the
disposal of the case.
4. Petitioners shall not commit similar to
the offences alleged against them.
5. Petitioners shall appear before the I.O.
as and when called for investigation.
6. Petitioners shall furnish the attested
copy of their respective Adhaar card
and present residential address proof to
the I.O.

8
Crl.Misc.No.539/2023
Notwithstanding this order of
anticipatory bail do not in any manner
limit or restrict the rights and duties of
the police or investigating agency, to
investigate into the charges against the
petitioners.
(Dictated to the Judgment Writer directly on Computer, typed by
her, taken print out, corrected by me and then pronounced in the
open Court on this the 30th day of January 2023)
(A.V.PATIL)
LXIII Addl. City Civil and Sessions
Judge (CCH-64), Bengaluru City.