IN THE COURT OF LXXI ADDL. CITY CIVIL &
SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY (CCH-72)
DATED THIS THE 24 th DAY OF JUNE, 2022
PRESENT:
Smt. K.S.JYOTHISHREE, B.Com, L.L.B.
LXXI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru.
CRL.MISC.No.5912/2022
Petitioner
Anjith Kumar,
S/o Ramachandran,
Aged about 36 years
R/at No.21, 1st Street,
Doddabasavanapura,
Bengaluru.
(By Sri.Prauthvi Raj, Adv.)

AND
Respondent State of Karnataka
K.R.Puram P S, Bangalore.
(By the learned Public
Prosecutor)
ORDER ON BAIL APPLICATION FILED U/S.438
OF Cr.P.C.
This bail application is filed by the petitioner
under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. praying to grant an order
2
Crl.Misc.No.5912/2022
of anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest in
complaint if any lodged by Smt.Sathyavani Yedla for
the offences punishable U/s. 354 and 420 of IPC.
2. The facts are as under:
The petitioner is having construction business.
He was constructing residential building measuring
11 square. Smt. Sathyavani Yedla approached the
petitioner to purchase the property. She agreed to
purchase for Rs.83,00,000/-. The sale agreement was
registered on 24.08.2021. The petitioner and the
purchaser had entered into MOU dated 22.10.2021.
Petitioner received cheque of Rs.10,00,000/- and it
was dishonored. Another cheque issued by the
purchaser for Rs.10,00,000/-, Rs.5,76,000/- were
also dishonored. So the petitioner sent legal notice
and it was duly served on the purchaser. There after
3
Crl.Misc.No.5912/2022
she approached the respondent police and lodged
complaint against the petitioner.
3. Grounds for bail:
1. The petitioner is innocent.
2. The petitioner has filed PCR.No.53837/2022
against Smt Sathyavani Yedla.
3. She has file the complaint to harass the
petitioner.
4. The petitioner are ready to abide by the
conditions to be imposed by the court.
With these contentions, he has requested to
allow the application.
4. The learned Public Prosecutor has filed the
objections submitting that there is no criminal case
registered against the petitioner. Hence, prayed for
dismissal of the application.
5. Heard. Now the points that arise for my
consideration are:
1. Whether the petitioner have made
out sufficient grounds to grant
anticipatory bail ?

4
Crl.Misc.No.5912/2022
2. What order?
6. My answer to the on the above points are
hereunder:
Point No.1:
Point No.2:
In the Negative.
As per final order,
for the following:
REA S ON S
7. Point No.1:
It appears that the alleged
dispute is civil in nature. The petitioner has already
filed PCR.No.53837/2022 for the offences P/U/S.138
and 142 of NI Act.
8. In the present case, the petitioner has
contended
that
they
cheque
issued
by
Smt.

Sathyavani Yedla in his favor were dishonored.
According to him, he issued legal notice to the
purchaser and it was duly served on her. The
petitioner has not produced the alleged copy of
complaint, filed by Smt. Sathyavani Yedla.

Further,
he has not shown any document to establish
5
apprehension of arrest.

Crl.Misc.No.5912/2022
In other words, nothing is
placed to show that the respondent police have issued
notice to him to appear before them for inquiry. In
this situation,
there is no apprehension of arrest.

Hence, I answered this point in the negative.
9. Point No.2: In the result, therefore, I proceed
to pass the following:
O RDE R
This
bail
application
filed
by
the
petitioner under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. is
hereby rejected.
(Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer directly on the computer,
corrected by me and then pronounced in open Court on this the 24th day
of June, 2022)
(K.S.Jyothishree)
LXXI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge
Bengaluru.