IN THE COURT OF THE LVIII ADDL.CITY CIVIL AND
SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH-59), BENGALURU CITY.
Dated this the 21st day of June, 2022
PRESENT:
Sri.N.Krishnaiah, B.Sc., LL.B.,
LVIII Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge (CCH-59),
Bengaluru City.
CRL.MISC.No.6015/2022
PETITIONER
:
Baba Avez @ Babu,
S/o Shakeer Ahamed,
Aged about 28 years,
Residing at
C/o Shakeer Ahamed,
Manju Reddy Building,
Kishore Layout,
Santhe Beedi, Jigani,
Anekal Taluk,
Bengaluru Ц 560 105.
(By Sri.Vishwanatha, Advocate)
V/S
RESPONDENT
:
The State of Karnataka by
J.P.Nagar Police Station,
Bengaluru.
(By Learned Public Prosecutor)
ORDER ON BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 OF CR.P.C.
The petitioner has filed this petition under section 438
of Cr.P.C., seeking to enlarge him on anticipatory bail in the
2
C.Misc.No.6015/2022
C.Misc.No.3701/2020
event of his arrest by the respondent police in Crime
No.109/2022, for the offence punishable under section 420
of IPC, pending on the file of 30 th Additional Metropolitan
Magistrate, Bengaluru, by allowing the petition in the ends
of justice.

2.

He has further contended that he is an innocent
and he has not committed the alleged offence. He has been
falsely implicated in this case. He was released on regular
bail in C.Misc.No.5209/2022 on the file of the learned III
Additional District and Sessions Judge at Anekal in crime
No.87/2022 for the same offence. Continuing with the
prosecution in this case, would amount to double jeopardy
and the accused would be devoid of his fundamental right
under Article 20(2) of the Indian Constitution and also under
section 300(1) of Cr.P.C. There is no prima facie material to
show that he is involved in the alleged offence. In order to
safe guard the real culprits in the bigger scam, the
respondent police have without any kind of morale have
arrested and filed this cheating case against the innocent
person. He is aged about 28 years and he is a respectable
3
C.Misc.No.6015/2022
C.Misc.No.3701/2020
person in his locality.

He is a permanent resident of the
address shown in the cause title and having deep roots in
the society. He is ready and willing to abide by any terms
and conditions that may be imposed by this court and he is
ready to co-operate for investigation. Hence, he requests to
allow this petition in the ends of justice.

3.

On the contrary, the learned Public Prosecutor has
filed his objections and strongly opposed to allow this
petition on the major ground that, there is prima facie
sufficient material on record to show that this petitioner has
committed the alleged offence punishable under section
420 of IPC. He is also involved in another similar offence in
crime No.87/2022, registered by the Jigani police.

It
appears that he is an habitual offender. The investigation is
under progress. At this stage, if he is released on bail, he
may commit similar offence and he may terrorize the
prosecution witnesses and he may abscond from the
jurisdiction of this court. Then fair investigation cannot be
conducted. Hence, he requests to reject the petition in the
ends of justice.

4
C.Misc.No.6015/2022
C.Misc.No.3701/2020
4.

In view of the aforesaid rival contentions, the
following points that would arise for my consideration are:
1. Whether the petitioner is entitled
for anticipatory bail under section
438 of Cr.P.C., as prayed for in this
petition?
2. What Order?
5.

Heard arguments of both the sides and perused
the records.
6.

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

POINT NO.1:-
Based on the first information
initiated by the first informant, the respondent police have
registered this case in crime No.109/2022 for the offence
punishable under section 420 of IPC and send FIR. This
petitioner
was arrested
in another case in crime
No.87/2022 registered by Jigani police. In that case he was
released on regular bail. The investigation is under progress.

5
C.Misc.No.6015/2022
C.Misc.No.3701/2020
At this stage, this petitioner has come up with this petition
seeking anticipatory bail on the major ground that, there is
no prima facie material on record to show that, he is
involved in the alleged offence.
8.

But as rightly pointed out by the learned Public
Prosecutor, on perusal of the entire allegations made in the
complaint, there is sufficient prima facie materials to show
that, this petitioner was known to the complainant since
college days.

On
02.02.2022 he called the complainant
through mobile and informed that he was working at
Reliance, his mother was ill and was in need of money for
lakhs for her treatment.

Later on, again the petitioner
called the complaiannt to Reliance Digital Showroom in
J.P.Nagar and made the complainant to believe that he was
working in that showroom, he would arrange loan on no cost
EMI and asked the complainant to buy one mobile and
return to the showroom so that petitioner would get
incentive. Subsequently, the petitioner got scanned credit
and debit cards of the complainant and availed loan of
Rs.8,37,061/- and subsequently he has cheated without
6
C.Misc.No.6015/2022
C.Misc.No.3701/2020
returning the amount and without paying the EMI. Hence,
there is prima facie sufficient materials to show that, this
petitioner has committed a fraud to innocent complainant in
order to grab money
and dishonestly cheated, which
attract section 420 of IPC.
9. No doubt, as submitted bythe learned counsel for
the petitioner, he was released on bail in similar offence in
crime No.87/2022 registered by Jigani police. According to
the learned counsel for the petitioner, the said case
registered by the Jigani police and this case registered by
respondent police are one and the same. But, on perusal of
the bail order produced by the petitioner himself and the CD
produced in this case by the Investigating Officer, which
clearly indicates that though the offence is similar, but the
date of offence and place of offence are entirely different.
When such being the case, the argument canvassed by the
learned counsel for the petitioner is hit by double jeopardy
holds no water. Though he was released in that case, but
on that sole ground, the materials available on record in this
case cannot be ignored. It appears that the prosecution has
7
C.Misc.No.6015/2022
C.Misc.No.3701/2020
not brought to the notice of the said court as this petitioner
is involved in similar other offence.
10.

That apart in this case,
the prosecution has
placed some materials to show that, this petitioner has not
only involved in this case, but he is also involved in another
case in crime No.87/2022 for the similar offence. Hence, it
appears that, he is an habitual offender. The investigation
is under progress. He is required for custodial interrogation
in this case.

His modus operandi
is by contacting the
innocent persons and some how manage to get their debit
and credit cards and used the same and cheated with an
intention to grab the money. When such being the case, if
he is released on bail, it will have impact on the society and
fair investigation cannot be conducted. Under all these
circumstances and also considering the nature and gravity
of the alleged offence against this petitioner, it is not a fit
case to extend the discretionary power in favour of this
petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner has not made out any
sufficient grounds to entertain this petition and to enlarge
him on bail. Therefore, the petition filed by the petitioner
8
C.Misc.No.6015/2022
C.Misc.No.3701/2020
lacks merit and the same is deserves to be rejected. In view
of the above reasons, I answer the point No.1 in the
УNegativeФ.
11.

POINT NO.2:-
In the result, for the reasons
stated above, I proceed to pass the following;
ORDER
The
bail
petition
filed
by
the
petitioner under section 438 of Cr.P.C. is
hereby rejected.

(Dictated to the Judgment Writer, transcribed by her,
corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in the open
court on this the 21st day of June, 2022)
(N.KRISHNAIAH)
LVIII ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND
SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH-59)
BENGALURU CITY.

9
C.Misc.No.6015/2022
C.Misc.No.3701/2020
Order pronounced in the open
Court (vide separate order)
ORDER
The
bail
petition
filed
by
the
petitioner under section 438 of Cr.P.C. is
hereby rejected.
(N.Krishnaiah)
LVIII Addl. City Civil and
Sessions Judge (CCH-59)
Bengaluru City.