KABC010089712024
IN THE COURT OF LXV ADDL CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS
JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY (CCH-66)
PRESENT
SHRI. HEMANTH KUMAR. C.R.
B.A.L., L.L.B.,
LXV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru.
Dated this the 10 th day of April, 2024
Crl.Misc.No. 3176 of 2024
PETITIONER/S:-
1. Byrappa,
S/o. Hanumanthaiah
Aged about 63 years
Bannihagara, Sira
Tumukur – 577 137
2. Ashok. B
S/o. Byrappa
Aged about 30 years
No.9, I ‘B’ Main Road
Chennappa Garden
Poornapura, Gokula
Bengaluru – 560 054
3. Smt. Lakshmi Devi
W/o. Byrappa
Aged about 59 years
Soppenahutti, Sira
Tumkur – 577 137
(By Sri. S.R.R., Advocate)
Crl.Misc.No.3176/2024
2
V/s.
RESPONDENT/S:-
STATE OF KARNATAKA,
By Mahadevapura Police Station,
Bengaluru.
(Rep. by Public Prosecutor)
ORDER ON PETITION FILED UNDER
SECTION 438 OF CR.P.C
This petition is filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C., seeking
anticipatory bail to the petitioners in Crime No.836/2024 registered by
the respondent Mahadevapura
police for the offence punishable
under sections 406, 419, 420, 465, 468, 471, 506 R/w Section 34 of
IPC.
2.

Brief facts of the case:-
The complainant alleges that he has retired on 31.05.2020. and
the petitioner during November, December 2020, visited his sister’s
residence and he was introduced to Accused No.1 Ramesh and
Accused No.2 Geetha who are neighbours to the said accused and the
Accused No.1 Ramesh introduced himself as Chartered Accountant
and Real Estate Agent.

Both Ramesh and Geetha induced and
deceived that they will help the complainant to purchase the Land.
Thereafter, as per the instructions of Ramesh and Geetha, the
complainant paid the amounts towards the purchase of properties in
and around Tumkur, an amount of 25,000/- on 06.11.2020 through
IMPS from R. Guruprasad to Ramesh.B’s Account. Rs. 1,00,000/- on
06.11.2020 through Google Pay from Guruprasad to Ramesh’s
Account. Rs. 25,000/- on 06.11.2020 through IMPS from Guruprasad
to Geetha’s Account. Rs. 25,000/- on 06.11.2020 through IMPS from
Guruprasad to Nethravathi’s Account.

Rs. 1,05,250/- on 09.11.20
3
Crl.Misc.No.3176/2024
through SBI cheque from complainant to Geetha’s account.

Rs.

9,78,000/- on 09.11.2020 through SBI cheque from complainant to
Geetha’s Account. Rs. 3,50,000/- on 09.11.2020 through SBI cheque
from complainant to Geetha’s account.

The Government imposed
second lockdown in the middle of April 2021. The accused No.3 to 5
got acquainted with the family of complainant. Thereafter, the accused
induced complainant and his family to purchase the properties at Sy
No. 85/1 mesuring 20 guntas (out of 3 acre 20 guntas) of H.
Narasimha at Kallukunte Village, Kasaba Hobli, Sira Taluk, Tumkur
District. Sy No. 85/1 measuring 20 guntas (out of 3 acre 20 guntas) of
H. Narasimha at Kallukunte Village, Kasaba Hobli, Sira Taluk, Tumkur
District. Sy No. 97 measuring 4 acre of Siddagangamma (Mother of
Geetha) at Kallulkunte Village, Kasaba Hobli, Sira Taluk, Tumkur
District.

Sy No. 56, measuring 12.22 guntas of Maddarangaiah,
Dasodigrama, huliyara Hobli, Chikkanayakanahalli Taluk, Tumkur
District. Kallukunte Badavane, Sira Town, Sira Taluk, Site No. 154,
East to West 20′ North to South 30′ owned by Ramesh. Kallukunte
Badavane, Sira Town, Sira Taluk, Site No. 161, East to West 30′ North
to South 20′ owned by Siddagangamma (previous owner Geetha).
Kallukunte Badavane, Sira Town, Sira Taluk, Site No. 42, East to West
30′ North to South 20′ owned by Siddagangamma (previous owner
Lakshmidevi). In addition to the above said payments, Ramesh and
his family received the further amounts from the family of complainant.
Ramesh received Rs. 54,93,610/- from complainant and his son.
Geetha received Rs. 2,00,000/- from the complainant. Lakshmidevi
received Rs. 2,00,000/- from the complainant. Byrappa received Rs.
1,00,000/- from complainant. Ashok received Rs. 90,000/- from the
complainant. Dayananda received Rs. 1,51,000/- from complainant.
Raghavendra received Rs. 83,500/- from complainant and Nagesh
4
Crl.Misc.No.3176/2024
received Rs. 1,00,000/- from complainant. Then Ramesh executed
Site No. 151 in favour of wife of complainant on 30.07.2021 for a sale
consideration of Rs. 5,58,000/- in the alleged presence of Geetha
(Accused No.2), Lakshmidevi (Accused No.5) and Byrappa (Accused
No.3).

The concerned Department rejected the Khatha transfer
application.

The complainant found that the site Ramesh’s family
owned and sold to them was Ashraya Site which cannot be allotted to
Ramesh being a Male. Alleging the same the complainant has lodged
complaint against the petitioner and the police have registered the
case in Crime No. 836/2023 for the offences punishable under
Sections 406, 419, 420, 465, 468, 471, 506 r/w Section 34 of IPC.
3. The petitioners being aggrieved by the same have preferred
this bail petition on the following among other grounds and the
petitioners submits that the alleged offences are not punishable with
death or imprisonment for life and the ingredients of the alleged
offences does not attract as against the petitioners and they are
innocent of the alleged offences.
contended that
The petitioners have further
the complainant made transfer of amount to the
account of the petitioners as per the instructions of the accused No.1
and they have falsely implicated in the said case and also contended
that the amounts received through complainant is transferred to the
accused No.1 The petitioners submit that the petitioner No.3 is retired
Government Servant and the Petitioner No.5 is Housewife.

The
petitioner No.4 is residing in Bangalore. The petitioners submit that
there are from respectable family and also have contended that they
are permanent citizens of Sira Town, Tumkur District. The petitioner
No.4 is permanent citizen of Bangalore. The petitioners submit that
they are ready and willing to abide by the conditions imposed by this
5
Crl.Misc.No.3176/2024
court and also co-operate with the investigation. Hence prays to allow
the bail petition.
4.

After service of notice, the learned Public Prosecutor has
appeared and filed objections contending that the offences alleged
against the petitioners are grievous in nature and also further
contended that the alleged offences against the petitioners under
Sections 406, 419, 420, 465, 468, 471, 506 r/w Section 34 of IPC are
non bailable in nature and further contended that the complaint
averments prima facie shows that the petitioners have involved in the
alleged offences.

The Learned Public Prosecutor has also further
contended that the act of the petitioners in committing the offences are
grievous and further contended that the investigation is still in progress
at this stage if the bail petition of the petitioners are allowed there are
every chances of the petitioners threatening the prosecution
witnesses, destroying the evidence, abscond and hamper the trial.
Hence, prays to reject the bail petition.
5.

Heard the arguments. Now the points that arise for my
consideration.-
6.

1.

Whether the petitioners have made out
sufficient ground to allow the petition
filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C?

2.

What order?
My answer to the above points are.Point No.1:Ц
In the Affirmative
Point No.2:Ц
As per final order
for the following
REASONS
7.

Point No.1:-
The petitioners counsel has addressed
the arguments contending that the petitioners are innocent of the
6
Crl.Misc.No.3176/2024
alleged offences and the offences are not punishable for life
imprisonment or death. The complaint averments does not attract the
offences alleged against the petitioners. The petitioners counsel has
further contended that the amounts received from the complainant are
transferred to the account of the accused No.1 and the petitioners
have contended that they are not involved in the alleged offences
directly or indirectly.

The petitioners counsel has also further
contended that the petitioners are permanent residents of Tumkur and
Bangalore and they are ready and willing to abide by the terms and
conditions imposed by this Court and also to co-operate with the
investigation. Hence, prays to allow the bail petition.
8. The learned Public Prosecutor has addressed the arguments
contending that the offences alleged against the petitioners are
grievous in nature and also further contended that the complaint
averments prima-facie shows that the petitioners have involved in the
alleged commission of offence. The learned Public Prosecutor further
contended that the investigation is still in progress, at this stage, if the
bail petition of the petitioners are allowed there are every chances of
the petitioners threatening the prosecution witnesses, destroying the
evidence, abscond and hamper the trial. Hence, prays to reject the
bail petition.
9. On perusal of the records it is noticed that the complainant
has lodged complaint against petitioners alleging that they have
received huge amounts from the complainant and his family members
and also one Ramesh has executed Sale Deed in favour of wife of
complainant with respect to Site No. 151 for sale consideration of Rs.
5,58,000/- on 30.07.2021.

The concerned department has not
transferred the Khatha, as the site allotted is Ashraya Site and the
Crl.Misc.No.3176/2024
7
complainant police after receiving complaint have registered the case
in Crime No. 836/2023 for the offences punishable under Section 406,
419, 420, 465, 468, 471, 506 r/w 34 of IPC. The offences alleged
against the petitioners are not punishable with imprisonment of life or
death. The petitioners have contended that they are ready and willing
to abide by the terms and conditions imposed by this Court and also to
co-operate with the investigation.

The apprehension of the
persecution can be satisfied by imposing stringent conditions.
Admittedly, the petitioners are the residents of the address shown in
the cause title. On perusal of records it is notice that the case is still in
the stage of investigation and at this stage, it cannot be said that the
petitioners are involved in the alleged offences. Considering all these
facts, I am of the opinion that the petitioners can be enlarged on bail
by imposing certain conditions, which would meet the apprehension of
prosecution. Accordingly, I answer the point No.1 in the Affirmative.
10.

Point No.2:- In view of the findings given on point No.1,
I proceed to pass the following.ORDER
The petition filed by the petitioners under
Section 438 of Cr.P.C., is allowed.
The respondent Mahadevapura police is
directed to release the petitioners on bail in
Crime No.836/2023 registered for the offence
punishable under Section 406, 419, 420, 465,
468, 471, 506 r/w 34 of IPC on execution of
personal bond for Rs.1,00,000/- with one surety
for the likesum subject to the following
8
Crl.Misc.No.3176/2024
CONDITIONS:1.
2.

The petitioners shall appear before the
court on all the dates of hearing.
The petitioners shall appear before the I.O
whenever they are called upon for the
purpose of further investigation.

3.

The petitioners shall not involve in any
criminal activities.

4.

The petitioners shall not tamper with the
evidence and shall not threaten, induce
allure the prosecution witnesses in
whatsoever manner.

5.

The petitioners shall not leave the
jurisdiction of the court without prior
permission of the court.

6.

The petitioners to produce permanent
address proof document.

(Dictated to the Stenographer-III, transcribed by her, corrected and then
pronounced by me in the Open Court on this 10th day of April, 2024)
(HEMANTH KUMAR. C.R)
LXV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru.