KABC010227862023
Presented on
Registered on
Decided on
Duration
: 24-08-2023
: 24-08-2023
: 01-09-2023
: 0 years, 0 months,
8 days
IN THE COURT OF THE LXIV ADDL.CITY CIVIL &
SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH-65) AT BENGALURU)
Dated this 1 st day of September 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.8284/2023
PETITIONER
:
Anil Kumar J.V.
S/o. Venkate Gowda,
Aged about 39 years,
R/at No.302,
Peace Desire Apartment,
Gidada Konenahally,
Muddananpalya Circle,
Bengaluru-560 091.

2
Crl.Mis.No.8284/2023
Permanent R/at.
Jagadhapura village,
Channapatna Taluk,
Ramanagara District-562138.
(Accused No.2)
(By Sri.Prasanna S.L., Advocate)
/Vs/
RESPONDENT
:
State of Karnataka by
Annapurneshwari Nagar Police Station,
Bengaluru.
(Rep. By Learned Public Prosecutor)
ORDERS ON ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION
U/S.438 OF CR.P.C.
Petitioner/accused
No.2
has
filed
this
petition
U/s.438 of Code Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred
as
Cr.P.C.,)
seeking
C.C.No.25830/2019
based
anticipatory
on
bail
Cr.No.350/2018
in
of
Annapurneshwari Nagar police station, Bengaluru for the
offences punishable U/s.418, 419, 420, 468, 471, 120(B)
R/w.Sec.34 of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred as
3
Crl.Mis.No.8284/2023
I.P.C.), pending on the file of V-Addl. Chief Metropolitan
Magistrate Court, Bengaluru.
2.

Learned Public Prosecutor
appearing for
the
State has filed objection statement opposing the bail
petition.
3.

For the purpose of brevity, the facts stated in
the petition and objections will be stated at appropriate
stage of the orders.
4.

Heard
arguments. Perused the materials on
record.
5.

The points do arise for my consideration are;
1. Whether petitioner/accused No.2 is
entitled for grant of anticipatory bail
U/s.438
of
Code
of
Criminal
Procedure?
2. What Order?

4
Crl.Mis.No.8284/2023
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:R E A SON S
7.

POINT NO.1:- Along with petition, petitioner
has produced certified copies of complaint, F.I.R. in
Cr.No.350/2018,
charge
sheet
and
order
sheet
in
C.C.No.25830/2019, xerox copies of Aadhar card of the
petitioner and orders passed in Crl.Mis.No.11511/2019
and Crl.Mis.No.3587/2021. Perused the same.
8.

The facts set out in the complaint, F.I.R., and
charge sheet in brief, is as under;
That,
accused No.1 along with other accused
persons entered into criminal conspiracy and
sold site
5
Crl.Mis.No.8284/2023
No.66 of Cw.1 for
wrongful gain
by creating false
documents to show that, one of the accused is the owner of
the said site. They sold the same site to Smt. Sudha for the
second time, thereby committed cheating, criminal breach
of trust to the complainant/Cw.1. On the basis of the
complaint, respondent police have registered this case
against accused persons and proceeded with investigation.
After completion of investigation,
respondent police filed
charge sheet.
9.

Learned
counsel
vehemently
argued
that,
petitioner/accused No.2 is innocent of the alleged offences.
He has not committed
any such offences.

He has been
falsely implicated in this case. Investigation is completed.
Charge sheet is filed. Accused No.1 and 3 are already on
bail. The petitioner hails from respectable family and
undertakes to co-operate with investigation. He is ready
and willing to abide by the terms and conditions that may
6
Crl.Mis.No.8284/2023
be imposed by this court. There is serious apprehension of
arrest. The 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 petitioner are 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 offences alleged against the petitioner is
punishable under 420
of I.P.C. and allied offences. It is
7
Crl.Mis.No.8284/2023
settled law that, in a case of this nature, custodial
interrogation is not warranted, as they are primarily based
on documentary evidence. 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 Ц Anticipatory
bail Ц Entitlement Ц 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 Ц CBI did not require the
custodial interrogation of accused persons
during investigation- CBI only wanted the
presence of accused persons before trial
court to face trial- Therefore to oppose the
anticipatory bail request may not be proper
Ц When case was primarily
based
documentary
of
evidence,
arrest
on
accused
persons was not warranted- Eleven cases
were registered against prime accused but
those
cases
were
not
relevant
for
8
Crl.Mis.No.8284/2023
adjudicating the present matter.

Accused
persons
may
apprehended
remanded
to
that
custody
by
they
trial
be
court-
Anticipatory bail granted.
The ratio laid down in the cited decision is applicable
to the facts and circumstances of this case.
12.

It is forthcoming
from the records that,
investigation is completed. Charge sheet is filed. Hence,
petitioner is not required for custodial interrogation. The
matter is purely civil in nature. Pre-trial detention is not
warranted. There is no report of criminal antecedents. The
petitioner has permanent place of abode at Ramanagara
District. The chances of flee from justice is remote. Already
accused
No.1
and
3
were
on
bail.

Hence,
this
petitioner/accused is also entitled to be released on bail on
the ground of parity. Under these facts and circumstances
and in view of the law laid down by
Hon’ble
Supreme
Court of India in the case of Satender Kumar Antil
9
Crl.Mis.No.8284/2023
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.
13.

POINT
NO.2:
In
view
of
the
aforesaid
discussion, this court proceed to pass the following :
O R DE R
Anticipatory
bail
petition
U/s.438
of
Cr.P.C., filed by the petitioner/accused No.2 is
allowed.
Respondent police is directed to release
the petitioner/accused No.2 on bail in the
event of his arrest in C.C.No.25830/2019
based
on
Cr.No.350/2018
of
10
Crl.Mis.No.8284/2023
Annapurneshwari
Bengaluru
U/s.418,
Nagar
for
the
419,
420,
police
offences
468,
station,
punishable
471,
120(B)
R/w.Sec.34 of I.P.C., pending on the file of VAddl. 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
No.2
shall
furnish
documents regarding his address proof
and the address proof of his sureties at
the time of furnishing sureties.
2. He shall not
directly or indirectly make
any inducement threat or promise to any
person acquainted with the facts
case
so
disclosing
as
to
such
dissuade
facts
of the
him
either
to
from
the
Investigation Officer or to the trial court.
3. He shall not leave the jurisdiction of India
without prior permission of the trial
court.

11
Crl.Mis.No.8284/2023
4. He shall not involve in any criminal
activities.
5. In the event any change in the residential
address, petitioners and their sureties
shall intimate the same to the trial court
immediately without fail.
Violation of any of these conditions would
entitle cancellation of bail.
(Dictated to the Judgment Writer, transcribed and
computerized by her, then corrected, signed and
pronounced by me in open court on this 1 st day of
September 2023).

(KALPANA M.S.)
LXIV ADDL.CITY CIVIL &
SESSIONS JUDGE, CCH-65,
BENGALURU CITY.

12
Crl.Mis.No.8284/2023
13
Crl.Mis.No.8284/2023
14
Crl.Mis.No.8284/2023
Order pronounced in the open
Court (vide separate Order)
OR D E R
Anticipatory bail petition U/s.438 of
Cr.P.C., filed by the petitioner/accused
No.2 is allowed.

15
Crl.Mis.No.8284/2023
Respondent
police
is
directed
to
release the petitioner/accused No.2 on bail
in
the
event
of
his
C.C.No.25830/2019
Cr.No.350/2018
arrest
based
of
in
on
Annapurneshwari
Nagar police station, Bengaluru for the
offences punishable U/s.418, 419, 420,
468, 471, 120(B) R/w.Sec.34 of I.P.C.,
pending
on
the
file
of
V-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 No.2 shall furnish
documents regarding his address
proof and the address proof of his
sureties at the time of furnishing
sureties.
2. He shall not
directly or indirectly
make any inducement threat or
promise to any person acquainted
with the facts of the case so as to
16
Crl.Mis.No.8284/2023
dissuade him from disclosing such
facts
either
to
the
Investigation
Officer or to the trial court.
3. He shall not leave the jurisdiction of
India without prior permission of
the trial court.
4. He shall not involve in any criminal
activities.
5. In the event any change in the
residential address, petitioners and
their sureties shall intimate the
same to the trial court immediately
without fail.
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,
17
Crl.Mis.No.8284/2023
BENGALURU CITY.