1
Crl.Misc.No.7820/2023
KABC010216402023
IN THE COURT OF LV ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS
JUDGE, BENGALURU (CCC-56)
: Present :
Sri. SHRIRAM NARAYAN HEGDE,
B.A., LL.M.,
LV Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru.
DATED: THIS THE 22ND DAY OF AUGUST 2023
Crl.Misc. No.7820 / 2023
PETITONER/S:
DARSHAN P.
S/O S.PUSHPARAJ
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO. 47 (92),
MALAGALU VILLAGE AND POST,
KANAKAPURA TOWN,
KANAKAPURA , MALGAL,
RAMANAGARA Ц 562 117.
KARNATAKA.
IN FIR NAME IS INDICATED AS
SRI.PURHPARAJ DARSHAN
(By M/s ACA JURIS, Adv.)
VERSUS
RESPONDENT
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY VYALIKAVAL POLICE
STATION,
2
Crl.Misc.No.7820/2023
BENGALURU,
(By Public Prosecutor)
ORDER
The petitioner / accused No.1 has filed this petition
under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. seeking for an order of
anticipatory bail.
2.

On the complaint filed by Sri.Swaminathan S/o late
Ganapathi Venkataraman,
respondent PS
a case is registered at the
in Cr.No.20/2023 for offences punishable
u/Ss. 471, 468, 420 of IPC.
3.

The case of the prosecution in brief is that, the first
informant is a partnership firm engaged in Infrastructure
Development. They had entered into a contract with M/s.
KNK Constructions Pvt. Ltd. for carrying out structural and
civil works in relation of construction of office building at
Sy.No.2/2, Venkatala Village, Yelahanka Hobli, Bengaluru.
Subsequently, M/s. KNK Constructions Pvt. Ltd. Abandoned
the work and failed to rectify the numerous defects. Then
the contract with them was terminated by a notice dated
25.02.2020. Subsequently on 22.02.2023 the first informant
3
Crl.Misc.No.7820/2023
received an e-mail from the Executive Engineer, KSRTC, CEDivision, Tumkur requesting them to confirm the details
mentioned in a ‘Work Done Certificate’ furnished by M/s.
KNK Constructions pvt. Ltd. The said ‘Work Done Certificate’
was printed on a fabricated and bogus letter-head of the
first informant given by using bogus rubber stamp and
forged signature of the Managing Partners of the company.
Hence, the complainant filed the aforesaid complaint. Now
the investigation is going on.

4.

Now this petitioner is contending that
he is an
innocent person and not committed any offences. He is
falsely implicated in this case. Only out of business rivalry
this complaint is filed. Way back in the month of January
2022, this petitioner had filed a complaint before the
jurisdictional Deputy Commissioner of Police against the
first informant. During that time, the police had issued an
endorsement stating that the matter is civil in nature.
Subsequently, this petitioner has filed one more complaint
in Cr.No.77/2023 against the first informant company for
4
Crl.Misc.No.7820/2023
various offences. After filing of present complaint, the police
had called this petitioner to the police station and this
petitioner has co-operated for investigation. The matter is
already in the arbitration. This petitioner company has
already received the payment from
the first informant
relating to work done. There is no necessity to create or
forge the work done certificate. The alleged offences are
not punishable with death or imprisonment for life.

This
petitioner is a businessman having high respect in the
society. Due to the pressure of the first informant, the police
are trying to arrest this petitioner. This petitioner is ready
and willing to abide by the conditions that may be imposed
by this court. He is ready to co-operate for investigation.
Hence, prayed to allow the petition.

5.

The learned Public Prosecutor has contested this
petition by filing detailed objections by reiterating the case
of the first informant and
further contended that this
petitioner is absconding from the date of incident and he is
required for custodial interrogation. Hence, prayed to reject
5
Crl.Misc.No.7820/2023
the bail application.
6.

Along
with
the
objection,
the
Investigating Officer is also filed.

report
of
the
In this report, the
Investigating Officer has stated that after issuance of
notice, this petitioner had appeared in the police station
and submitted all the required documents and all those
documents
are
seized
under
PF
No.40/2023.

The
prosecution prayed to reject the bail application on the
ground that the petitioner may tamper with the prosecution
witnesses and he may hamper the investigation and he
may abscond.
7.

The defacto complainant has appeared before this
court through his counsel and submitted his written
submission in detail by narrating the complaint averments
and further contended that since this petitioner has forged
the documents he is required for custodial interrogation.
Hence, he is not entitle for bail.
8.

Heard arguments and perused the records as well as
citations relied upon by both the parties.
9.

Now the point for determination is as follows.

6
Crl.Misc.No.7820/2023
УWhether the petitioner / accused has made out
sufficient grounds to grant an order of anticipatory bail
by resorting to special powers vested in this Court
under Section 438 of Cr.P.C.?Ф
10. On the basis of the materials available on record
finding to the above point is in the AFFIRMATIVE for the
following.
REASONS
11. I have gone through the entire materials available on
record. The alleged offences are not punishable with death
or imprisonment for life. It is not in dispute that the
petitioner is the permanent resident of the address
mentioned
in
the
cause
title.

The
report
of
the
Investigating Officer has clearly reveals that after receipt of
the notice from the police, this petitioner went to the police
station and submitted all the documents and co-operated
for investigation. The documents submitted by him are
seized under PF No.40/2023.

Under such circumstances,
this petitioner is entitle for an order of anticipatory bail.
There is no criminal antecedents.

The alleged forged
documents is stated to be in possession of KSRTC.

7
Crl.Misc.No.7820/2023
12. At the time of his arguments, the learned Public
Prosecutor as well as learned counsel for the defence
complainant have contended that in case of forgery
anticipatory bail cannot be granted.

In support of their
contention they have relied upon the judgment reportd in
(2012) 9 SUPREME COURT CASES 235 (MARUTI NIVRUTTI
NAVALE VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER).

In
this judgment, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has rejected the
application
for
anticipatory
bail
on
seriousness of the alleged forgery of
Hon’ble
supreme
Court
has
held
the
ground
of
lease deed. The
that
the
custodial
interrogation is necessary to recover the possession of the
alleged
forged
and
fabricated
documents
from
the
accused. Further allegation in that case was that during the
interim protection granted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court,
the
appellant
misused
the
liberty
to
scuttle
the
investigation and he had pressurized the complainant. In
that circumstances, the bail application was rejected.

13. But, in the case on hand the fact is different. It is not
8
Crl.Misc.No.7820/2023
the allegations of the prosecution that forged documents is
in possession of the petitioner / accused No.1.

Their
contention is that they have submitted forged ‘Work Done
Certificate’ to the KSRTC to get the tender. Apart from that,
the report of the Investigating Officer, itself is clear that this
petitioner has already appeared before the police and
submitted the documents which are required. Hence, the
arguments of the learned Public Prosecutor as well as the
learned counsel for the defacto complaint is not acceptable
one.
14. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the
petitioner has vehemently contended that rights of the
polcie cannot be restricted by an order of anticipatory bail.
The police will have powers to investigate relating to all the
allegations made against this petitioner. Hence, he prayed
for an order of anticipatory bail. He has further submitted
that this petitioner has already co-operated to the police for
investigation and in future also he will co-operate.

In
support of his contention he has relied upon the judgment
of Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in (2020) 5 SUPREME
9
Crl.Misc.No.7820/2023
COURT CASES 1 (SUSHILA AGGRWAL AND OTHERS VS.
STATE (NCT OF DELHI) AND ANOTHER). In this judgment,
the Hon’ble Supreme court has held as follows.
УRights and duties of police to investigate, held, not
restricted by anticipatory bail Ц An order of
anticipatory bail does not in any manner limit or
restrict the rights or duties of the police or
investigating agency, to investigate into the charges
against the person who seeks and is granted perarrest bail.Ф
15. The principles laid down above, aptly applies to the
case in hand also. This anticipatory bail order will not
restrict the power of Investigating Officer to investigate into
the matter.

At the time of
his arguments, the learned
counsel for the petitioner has also produced copy of
memorandum of petition
filed before the Hon’ble High
Court seeking for an appointment of an Arbitrator to resolve
the dispute between the parties. Considering all these
aspects, in my opinion, this petitioner is entitle for an order
of anticipatory bail.

Stringent conditions will meet the
objection of the prosecution.

Hence, the aforesaid point is
answered in the AFFIRMATIVE and proceed to pass the
following.

10
Crl.Misc.No.7820/2023
ORDER
Bail petition filed by the petitioner / accused No.1
under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. is hereby allowed.
In
the
event
of
arrest
of
this
petitioner
in
Cr.No.20/2023 of respondent police he shall be enlarged on
bail by accepting personal bond in a sum of Rs.1,00,000/with one surety for likesum, on the following conditions.
1.

The petitioner / accused No.1 shall appear before the
Investigating Officer within 10 days from the date of
this order.

2.

He shall not tamper with prosecution witnesses in
any manner.

3.

He shall co-operate with Investigating Officer as and
when called for investigation.

4.

He shall not commit similar offences.

5.

He shall mark his attendance in the respondent
police station on 1st Sunday of every month between
11-00 a.m.and 5-00 p.m. till filing of final report.

(Dictated to the Judgment Writer, transcribed by him and
then corrected by me and then pronounced in the open
court on this the 22nd day of MAY 2023)
(SHRIRAM NARAYAN HEGDE),
LV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Digitally signed
Bengaluru. (CCH-56)
SHRIRAM
NARAYAN
HEGDE
by SHRIRAM
NARAYAN
HEGDE
Date:
2023.08.22
17:34:46
+0530