1
Crl.Misc.8055/2023
KABC010222632023
IN THE COURT OF THE LXVIII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND
SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY (CCH-69)
Dated this the 30 th day of August 2023
:PRESENT:
Sri.Sabappa, B.Com., LLB (Spl.)
LXVIII Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru City.
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.8055/2023
PETITIONER :
Anif @ Mohammed Aneesh Basha
S/o Hammiabba Beary
Aged about 40 years,
R/at No.2, 208/J3, Polya Ruhan Manjil,
Bada Village, Uchila Post,
Udupi District-574 117.
(By Sri. Ramakrishana R.M., Adv.,)
V/s
RESPONDENT
:
State by;
Basavanagudi Police Station,
Bengaluru.

(Represented by Public Prosecutor)
2
Crl.Misc.8055/2023
ORDER ON BAIL PETITION U/SEC.438 OF CR.P.C.
This petition is filed by the petitioner under Sec.438 of
Cr.P.C.,
seeking
anticipatory
bail
in
connection
with
Cr.No.170/2022 registered by the Basavanagudi Police, for the
offences punishable under Secs.109, 34, 419, 420, 465, 468,
471 of IPC and 12(1), 12(2) of Passport Act, 1967.
2.

The brief facts of the petition are that, one constable
Madhusudana.J during the year 2020 under the instruction of the
PI, when he allegedly clearing the passport seva data, as per data,
when he went for checking the credentials of the data allegedly
submitted by the Mohammed karim @ Mohammed Rashid at the
moment allegedly one Ameen Sait, Naval, Hyder were present and
later the complainant again checked their credentials in criminal
data and antecedents and he did not find any criminal antecedents
and he later uploaded the clearance report in the passport seva
portal. Later pension mohalla police came to Basavangudi police
and shown a photograph asking whether he has issued clearance
certificate from this police station for passport Later complainant
came to know that, the person shown in the photography is the
same person where complainant went for verification for his
credentials and the person is same but the names are different.
Further complainant came to know that, the said Sadiq Pasha is
having criminal record and allegedly suppressing this fact and said
Sadiq Pasha obtained the passport with the help of said Ameen
3
Crl.Misc.8055/2023
Sait, Naval, Hyder and subsequently complainant lodged a
complaint before the higher authorities under Secs.109,34,419,420,
465, 468, 471 of IPC and Secs.12(1)(B), 12(2) of Passport Act. The
petitioner is not arrayed as accused neither in complaint nor in FIR.
But in the remand application the petitioner is arrayed as accused
No.18. Thus, having reason to believe that, the petitioner may be
arrested, thereby petitioner has approached this Court on the
following grounds :
The petitioner’s name is not reflecting in FIR, complaint, any
other statements since alleged offence was happened in the year
2020. Since then the petitioner was not called for any investigation,
but unfortunately on the behest of somebody or to falsely implicate
the petitioner, now the jurisdictional police implication him in the
alleged offences. The petitioner is innocent and ignorant of alleged
offences made against him and that he has been falsely implicated
by respondent police. The petitioner has nothing to do with the false
allegations made against him and he had no involvement in the
alleged offence.

The other accused implicated in this case are
already enlarged on bail by this Court. Hence, petitioner is begging
this Court to consider his bail application on parity ground as this
Court granted regular bails in Crl.Misc.10941/2022, 10898/2022
and 10899/2022. The alleged offence is not punishable with death
or imprisonment for life and triable by Magistrate Court. The
petitioner is permanent resident of the address shown in the cause
title. He is ready to abide by the conditions imposed by the Court.

4
Crl.Misc.8055/2023
Hence, he may be enlarged on bail.
3. The learned Public Prosecutor has filed objections to
the bail petition contending that the petitioner is involved in the
commission of offence. At this stage if the petitioner is enlarged on
bail, he may commit similar offences and not co-operate with the
investigation. He may try to abscond and tamper with the
prosecution witnesses etc.

The alleged offences are serious in
nature, thereby at this stage petitioner is not entitled for
bail.Therefore, the P.P has sought for rejection of bail.
4.
5.

Heard both sides. Perused the materials on record.
The points that arise for my consideration are:
1. Whether the petitioner has made out sufficient
grounds for grant of anticipatory bail as
sought for?
2. What order?

6.

My findings to the above points are as follows:
Point No.1 :
In the Affirmative,
Point No.2 :
As per final order,
for the following;
REASONS
7.

POINT No.1: On perusal of bail petition and objection
statement, it is noticed that respondent police registered a case in
5
Crl.Misc.8055/2023
Cr.No.170/2022 against one Sadiq Pasha and others. The name of
the petitioner is not found in the complaint or FIR. Lateron
respondent police submitted the remand application wherein the
present petitioner’s name is mentioned as accused No.18. Now
respondent police try to secure the petitioner in this case, thereby
petitioner has approached this Court. On perusal of other records,
it is noticed that respondent police already arrested the main
accused in this case and interrogated them and conducted the
mahazar as well as recovered the articles. It is further noticed that
co-accused Nos.1 to 5 as well as other accused persons are
already enlarged in bail by this Court in Crl.Misc.10941/2022,
10898/2022 and 10899/2022, thereby petitioner is seeking
anticipatory bail on the ground of parity. It is no doubt the alleged
offences are not punishable with death and also triable by
Magistrate Court. Based on the documents relied by the petitioner,
one thing is clear at this stage it is not possible to ascertain that
petitioner has actively participated in the crime, it requires trial.
Thereby present petitioner is also standing on the same footing.
The other accused are already enlarged on bail and thereby
petitioner is also entitled for bail. Hence, I have come to the
conclusion that in case if some stringent conditions are imposed on
the petitioner and granted bail, the apprehension of the prosecution
could be safeguarded otherwise the petitioner will be put to
humiliation and hardship, which cannot be compensated in terms of
money. Hence, the petitioner has made out sufficient grounds to
enlarge him on bail.

6
Crl.Misc.8055/2023
8. At this juncture, this Court feels that, while considering the
prayer for grant of anticipatory bail, a balance has to be struck
between two factors namely, no prejudice should be caused to the
free, fair and full investigation and there should be prevention of
harassment, humiliation and unjustified detention of the accused. In
view of the above discussion, I come to the conclusion that at this
stage the petitioner has made out sufficient grounds to enlarge
them on bail. The petitioner is permanent residents of address
mentioned in the cause title. He is ready to abide by any conditions
imposed by this Court. At the same time, I would like to mentioned
that, bail is a rule jail is exception. Thereby this court come to
conclusion that if some stringent conditions are imposed on the
petitioner and granted bail, the apprehension of the prosecution
could be safeguarded. Accordingly, I have answered point No.1 in
the Affirmative.

9.

POINT NO.2:
In view of my findings point No.1, I
proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
Bail
petition
filed
by
the
petitioner
under
Sec. 438 of Cr.P.C is hereby allowed.
Petitioner
anticipatory
bail
is
in
ordered
the
to
event
be
of
released
his
arrest
on
in
Cr.No.170/2022 of Basavanagudii P.S., on executing
7
Crl.Misc.8055/2023
his personal bond for Rs.1,00,000/- with two sureties for
the like sum on the following conditions.
1. The petitioner shall appear before the trial
court within 15 days from the date of this order.
2. The petitioner shall not tamper with the
Prosecution witnesses either directly or indirectly in
any manner.
3. He shall co-operate for investigation by the
concerned police and regularly appear before the
concerned court as and when required.
4. He shall not abscond from the ordinary
residence and he should furnish the address proof to
the concerned police.
5. He shall not indulge in any kind of offence.
6. He shall not leave the jurisdiction of the court
without prior permission.
If any of the above conditions violated the IO is
at liberty to move for cancellation of bail.
(Dictated to the Judgment Writer, typed by her, revised, corrected
and then pronounced by me in the open court on this the 30 th day of
August, 2023)
8
Crl.Misc.8055/2023
(Sabappa)
LXVIII Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.

9
Crl.Misc.8055/2023
ORDERS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN
COURT, VIDE SEPARATE ORDER
Bail petition filed by the petitioner
under Sec. 438 of Cr.P.C is hereby
allowed.
Petitioner is ordered to be released
on anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest
in Cr.No.190/2023 of Sampigehalli P.S.,
on executing his personal bond for
Rs.1,00,000/- with two sureties for the like
sum on the following conditions.
1. The petitioner shall appear before
the trial court within 15 days from the date of
this order.
2. The petitioner shall not tamper with
the Prosecution witnesses either directly or
indirectly in any manner.
3.
He
shall
co-operate
for
investigation by the concerned police and
regularly appear before the concerned court
as and when required.
4. He shall not abscond from the
ordinary residence and he should furnish
the address proof to the concerned police.
5. He shall not indulge in any kind of
offence.
6. He shall not leave the jurisdiction of
the court without prior permission.

10
Crl.Misc.8055/2023
If any of the above conditions violated
the IO is at liberty to move for cancellation
of bail.
LXVIII A.C.C & S.J,
Bengaluru City.