KABC010087382024 IN THE COURT OF LXVI ADDL CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY (CCH-67) PRESENT SHRI. HEMANTH KUMAR. C.R , B.A.L., L.L.B., LXV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, I/C LXVI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru. Dated this the 4 th day of April, 2024 Crl.Misc.No.3097/2024 PETITIONER:- C.K. SOUMYA, s/o C.K. Kalappa, Aged about 37 years, R/at No.403, MJR Residency, 40 Feet Main Road, KGF Munireddy Layout, Mahadevapura, Bengaluru -560048. [Accused No.1] (By Sri. BMS., Advocate) V/s. RESPONDENT:- STATE OF KARNATAKA, By Parappana Agrahara Police Station, Bengaluru. (Rep. by Public Prosecutor) 2 Crl.Misc.No.3097/2024 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 petitioner/ accused No.1 in Crime No.10/2024 registered by the respondent Parappana Agrahara police for the offence punishable under Sections 506, 420, 319, 417 of IPC.

2. Brief facts of the case are as follows.-

The complainant has lodged the complaint 07.01.2024 alleging that during the year 2018 one Ravikumar got introduced the complainant to the petitioner and the petitioner told the complainant that she is having influence at Minister level and she would get government job easily and made believe the complainant and had demanded to pay Rs.5,00,000/-. The complainant believing the words of the petitioner, the complainant had transferred a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- to the account of the petitioner and the petitioner having failed to get any job to the complainant and had failed to return the said amount. When the complainant demanded the petitioner to return the said amount, the petitioner has threatened the complainant with dire consequences, as such the complainant has lodged the complaint. The police on receipt of the said complaint have registered a case in Crime No.10/2024 for the offences punishable under Sections 506, 420, 319, 417 of IPC.

3. The petitioner being aggrieved by the same, has preferred

this bail petition on the following among other grounds. The petitioner submits that she is innocent of the alleged offences and she has been falsely implicated in the said case and the petitioner has further contended that the incident has occurred in the year 2015 and the complaint has been lodged on 07.01.2024 and there is a delay in 3 Crl.Misc.No.3097/2024 lodging the complaint. The petitioner submits that the complaint averments prima facie does not attract the alleged offence and the petitioner has contended that she is practicing advocate and she is ready and willing to abide by the terms and conditions imposed by this 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 offence alleged against the petitioner are grievous in nature and also has further contended that the complaint averments prima facie shows that the petitioner is involved in the alleged commission of offences. The learned Public Prosecutor has also further contended that the offences alleged against the petitioner is grievous and the same is still at the stage of investigation, at this stage if the bail petition of the petitioner is allowed, there is every chances of petitioner threatening the prosecution witnesses, destroy 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 are:

1. Whether the petitioner/accused No.1 has made out sufficient grounds to allow the petition filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C?

2. What order?

6. My answer to the above points are.-

Point No.1:– In the Affirmative Point No.2:– As per final order for the following 4 Crl.Misc.No.3097/2024

REASONS

7. Point No.1:- The petitioner counsel has addressed the

arguments contending that the petitioner is innocent of the alleged and she has been falsely implicated in the said case and the petitioner has further contended that the incident has occurred in the year 2015 and the complaint has been lodged on 07.01.2024 and there is a delay in lodging the complaint. The petitioner counsel has also further contended that the complaint averments prima facie does not attract the alleged offence and the petitioner has contended that she is practicing advocate and she is ready and willing to abide by the terms and conditions imposed by this court and also co-operate with the investigation. Hence, prays to allow the bail petition.

8. The learned Public Prosecutor has addressed the

arguments contending that the offence alleged against the petitioner are grievous in nature and also has further contended that the complaint averments prima facie shows that the petitioner is involved in the alleged commission of offences. The learned Public Prosecutor has also further contended that the offences alleged against the petitioner is grievous and the same is still at the stage of investigation, at this stage if the bail petition of the petitioner is allowed, there is every chances of petitioner threatening the prosecution witnesses, destroy 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 the complaint on 07.01.2024 alleging that in the year 2018 one Ravikumar got introduced the complainant to the petitioner and the petitioner had told the complainant that she is having influence at Minister level and she would get government job easily and made 5 Crl.Misc.No.3097/2024 believe the complainant and had demanded to pay Rs.5,00,000/-. The complainant believing the words of the petitioner, the complainant had transferred a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- to the account of the petitioner and thereafter the petitioner having failed to get any job to the complainant and had failed to return the said amount. When the complainant demanded the petitioner to return the said amount. When the complainant having asked for return of the said amount, the petitioner has threatened the complainant with dire consequences. Alleging the same the complainant has lodged the complaint. On perusal of the records it is noticed that the offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 506, 420, 319, 417 of IPC. The offences alleged against the petitioner are not punishable with imprisonment for life or death. The petitioner has contended that she is practicing advocate and she is ready and willing to abide by the terms and conditions imposed by this court and also co-operate with the investigation and also has contended that there is a delay in lodging the complaint. The apprehension of the prosecution is that if the bail petition of the petitioner is allowed there is every chances of petitioner threatening the prosecution witnesses, destroy the evidence, abscond and hamper the trial. In the present case the case is still under the stage of investigation, at this stage it cannot be said that the petitioner has committed the alleged offences. The guilt of the petitioner has to be proved during the course of trial. The said apprehension of the prosecution can be satisfied by imposing stringent conditions. Admittedly, the petitioner is resident of the address shown in the cause title. If at all during the course of trial, the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of the petitioner, he can be dealt with in accordance with law. Considering all these facts, I am of the opinion that the petitioner can be enlarged on bail by imposing certain conditions, which would meet 6 Crl.Misc.No.3097/2024 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 petitioner/ accused No.1 under Section 438 Cr.P.C., is hereby allowed. The respondent Parappana Agrahara police are hereby directed to release the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest in Crime No.10/2024 registered for the offence punishable under Sections 506, 420, 319, 417 of IPC, on execution of personal bond for Rs.1,00,000/- with one surety for the likesum subject to the following CONDITIONS:-

1. The petitioner shall appear before the court on all dates of hearing and shall cooperate with the investigation.

2. The petitioner shall appear before the I.O whenever he is called upon for the purpose of investigation.

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

4. The petitioner shall not involve in any criminal activity. 7 Crl.Misc.No.3097/2024

5. The petitioner shall produce the permanent address proof document.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and then pronounced by me in the Open Court on this 4th day of April, 2024) (HEMANTH KUMAR. C.R) LXV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, I/C LXVI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.