1
Crl.Misc.No. 6010/2022
IN THE COURT OF THE LIX ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS
JUDGE (CCH-60) AT BENGALURU)
Dated this 21st day of June, 2022
-: P R E S E N T :Sri. Sadananda Nagappa Naik, B.A.L, L.L.B.,
LIX ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, CCH-60
BENGALURU CITY.
Crl.Misc.No. 6010/2022
PETITIONER
:
Anantha Padmanabha. U.N.
S/o Nanjunde Gowda. U.J,
Aged about 45 years
R/at No.16, 4th Cross,
Sri Hari Layout,
Ullal Main Road,
Jnanabharathi
Bengaluru Ц 560 056.
(Accused No.8)
(By Sri. C.S. Lalitha Kumari, Advocate)
-VsRESPONDENT
:
State of Karnataka by SHO
Rajajinagar Police Station,
Bengaluru.
(Rep. By Learned Public Prosecutor)
ORDER ON ANTICIPATORY APPLICATION FILED U/S.438 OF
CR.P.C.
Petitioner has filed this petition U/s.438 of Cr.P.C., seeking
to release him on anticipatory bail in Crime No.22/2022 of
respondent police station registered for offence punishable U/s
406, 420, 504, 506 and R/w 149 of IPC.

2
Crl.Misc.No. 6010/2022
2.

In the petition, petitioner submitted that, he is
innocent of the alleged offences and had got a valid and
tenable defense.

The petitioner is an auditor of Spandana
Foundation run by accused No.2. As per the averments in the
complaint, there is absolutely no transaction at all between
the petitioner and the informant. The above said offences are
neither punishable with death nor life imprisonment.

The
petitioner is permanent resident of the above said address
and having aged parents, who are totally depending upon the
income of this petitioner as he is the sole male earning
member of this family.

The petitioner is law abiding citizen
and he undertakes to offer surety for his future appearance.
On these grounds, he prayed to enlarge him on anticipatory
bail.
3.

The prosecution filed objections reiterating the
allegations made in the complaint. Petitioner is required for
custodial interrogation. If the petitioner is released on
anticipatory bail, there is every chance of his abscond and he
may tamper the prosecution witnesses, he may flee from
justice and may destroy the evidence.

Accordingly, the
prosecution prayed to reject the petition.

4.

I have heard the arguments advanced by the
learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned
Public Prosecutor and on thorough reading of the objections
raised by the learned Public Prosecutor in his objection, the
following points that would arise for my consideration:
3
Crl.Misc.No. 6010/2022
1) Whether the petitioner/accused No.8 is
entitled for anticipatory bail at this stage?
2) What order?
5.

My finding on the above points are follows:
Point No. 1 :
In the Affirmative,
Point No. 2 :
As per final order,
for the following:
REASONS
6.

The facts pertaining to this case unfolded in brief
is that, the informant had required loan of Rs. 10 crore for the
purpose of development of his company in the name of Style
of Raising Sun Packaging Industries Pvt. Ltd and had
approached his friend Sri. Ravi Kumar, who in turn introduced
Smt. Manjula and she demanded 10% commission for such a
huge loan and the complainant paid Rs. 5,00,000/- to the
accused No.1 in the presence of accused No.6 and this
petitioner. On 28.07.2020, accused No.1 introduced the other
accused in this case and received Rs. 10,25,000/- and Rs.
5,00,000, on 04.08.2020 and 05.08.2020 Rs. 15,00,000/- , on
05.08.2020 totally amounting to Rs. 32,25,000/- assuring that
the loan amount will be sanctioned.

The accused No.2 has
received a letter of Rs. 40,16,000/- as commission and could
not get the loan sanctioned. The informant repeatedly asked
the accused 1 and 2 fulfill the promise, but they failed. The
accused No.2 issued cheque to the informant, which came to
be bounced.

The informant asked for return of the money,
4
Crl.Misc.No. 6010/2022
which is paid as commission as the accused No.1 and 2 failed
to avail loan and at that time, the accused persons except this
petitioner had threatened the informant with life and used
filthy language.

Hence, being cheated to the tune of Rs.

75,41,000/-, he filed a complaint. On the basis of the said
complaint, the respondent police registered a case in Crime
No.22/2022 for offence punishable under Sections 406, 420,
504, 506 and R/w 149 of IPC.
7.

The learned counsel for petitioner argued that, the
petitioner has been falsely implicated in the above case. He is
no way concerned to the alleged incident.

He has no active
role in the alleged crime. False case has been foisted against
the petitioner though he is no way concerned to the alleged
crime. The prosecution has not at all placed any prima-facie
materials to connect the petitioner in the present case. The
prosecution has not placed any materials to show that the
petitioner is involved in the aforesaid crime.

The petitioner
hails from respectable family having deep roots in the society
and he is ready to abide by any conditions that may be
imposed by this court in the event he is enlarged on
anticipatory bail. Hence, prayed to allow the petition.

8.

Per contra, the learned Public Prosecutor argued that,
the petitioner is one of the main accused. At this stage, if the
petition is allowed, there is every chance of abscondance from
the jurisdiction of this court and he being very influential
person
may
intimidate
the
witnesses
and
tamper
the
5
Crl.Misc.No. 6010/2022
evidences already collected against him and therefore prayed
to reject the petition.
9.

Considering the present bail petition, the Court is normally
required to consider the following aspects:
i) The nature and seriousness of the accusation;
ii) Severity of the offence ;
iii)Nature of the evidence collected and the character and
behaviour of the accused ;
iv) Chances of the accused absconding and not being available
during the trial ;
v) Possibility of repetition of such crime ;
vi)Chances of the accused of tampering with the evidence and
witnesses and
vii) Larger interest of the people and the State.
10. From the allegations in the FIR and from the statement
of objections filed by the Public Prosecutor, it can be seen that
the petitioner is arrayed as accused No.8. The offences alleged
against the petitioner though non-bailable but not punishable with
death or imprisonment for life.

According to the petitioner is
permanent resident of Bengaluru. Therefore, the petitioner is
available for trial. The apprehension of the prosecution could be
met by imposing conditions and no prejudice will be caused to the
investigating agency in case anticipatory bail is granted to the
petitioner. Accordingly, I answer in the ‘Affirmative’ and proceed
to pass the following:
ORDER
6
Crl.Misc.No. 6010/2022
Bail petition filed by petitioner/accused No.8 U/s.438
of Cr.P.C., is allowed.
Petitioner is directed to be released on bail in the event of
his arrest in Cr.No.22/2022 of respondent Police Station,
Bengaluru registered for the offences punishable U/s. 406,
420, 504, 506 and R/w 149 of IPC. shall release the petitioner on
bail on his executing a personal bond in a sum of Rs.2,00,000/each (Rupees two lakh) with two solvent sureties (one of
surety shall be government surety) for the like sum to the
satisfaction of the Investigating Officer with the following
conditions:
1. Petitioner shall not commit similar offences.
2. He shall not threaten or tamper with the prosecution
witnesses.
3. He shall appear before the court as and when required.
4. He shall appear before Investigating Officer on 1 st of
every month in between 10.00 a.m., to 2.00 p.m., for
a period of three months.
5. In case the petitioner violates any of these conditions,
the prosecution will be at liberty to seek cancellation
of the bail.
6. Investigating Officer shall verify the correctness of the
address and authentication of the documents
furnished by the petitioner and his sureties and
submit report.
(Dictated to the Stenographer directly on computer, typed
by her and same is corrected, signed and then pronounced by
me in the open court on this the 21st day of June, 2022).

7
Crl.Misc.No. 6010/2022
(SADANANDA NAGAPPA NAIK)
LIX ADDL.CITY CIVIL &
SESSIONS JUDGE, CCH-60,
BENGALURU CITY