IN THE COURT OF LXIX ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH 70) Present: Sri. Rajesh Karnam, B.Sc., LL.B.,LL.M., LXIX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru. Dated this the 12th day of January 2023 Crl.Misc.No.70/2023 PETITIONER : Sri.Deepa Kanthan, S/o.M.Raju, Aged about 36 years, R/at No.D-47, HAL Senior Officers Enclave, Near big Bazaar, C.V.Raman Nagar, Bengaluru-93 (Accused No.4). (By Sri.M.Nagendra, Advocate) .Vs. RESPONDENTS: State of Karnataka By Kempapura Agrahara P.S. Bengaluru. (By Public Prosecutor) ORDER ON BAIL PETITION FILED U/SEC. 438 OF CR.P.C. This bail petition is filed seeking anticipatory bail to the accused No.4 in Crime No.141/2022 registered by Kempapura Agrahara Police Station.

2. The petitioner submits that he served as

Hawaldar in Indian Army and retired from the service on 31.7.2018 and he was in search of job at Bengaluru. 2 Crl.Misc. No.70/2023 Now he is serving as a Supervisor at I.S.I., Bengaluru. One Shivaji Rao was got introduced to the complainant. He also introduced the complainant to Nishanth P.Shetty and told that he would get a job to the complainant at Kempegowda International Airport as he had secured job to the Nishanth P.Shetty. He also told he will bring the said person and would introduce him. Thereafter, said Nishanth P.Shetty demanded the complainant to pay a sum of Rs.2 Lkahs to get the job at Kempegowda Airport. Accordingly, the amount has been given to Shivaji Rao. However, during further course it has been promised to the petitioner that he will get job and need not come to medical examination also as Covid Pandemic is there, they will make necessary arrangement. The complainant believing all the accused persons had paid the amount to the tune of Rs.2,99,800/-. But, the accused persons failed to get the job to the complainant as promised.

3. The complainant went to the jurisdictional

Kempapura Agrahara P.S. and lodged the complaint punishable u/s. 406, 420, 465, 468, 471, 472, 504, 506 r/w. Sec.34 of IPC and Sec.66(B) of Information Technology Act, 2008. The I.O. registered Crime No.141/2022 and undertaken the investigation. The petitioner in apprehension, has come up with this anticipatory bail application. 3 Crl.Misc. No.70/2023

4. In the bail petition, petitioner submits that, he

has been falsely involved in the alleged offences. He is absolutely innocent of the alleged offences. The petitioner is doing business under the name and style of Prime Constructions and he never promised to get any job. However, this petitioner name falsely implicated. In fact the alleged transactions have happened as on 2.9.2022, complaint being registered, the crime was committed as on 24.12.2020. Therefore, as the petitioner has no semblance with the alleged offence, he may be released on conditional bail. Accordingly6, he has come up with the petition.

5. The learned Public Prosecutor has filed objections

submitting that the amount of Rs.2,99,000/- has been defrauded. Rs.2,92,000/- was transferred to the account of Shivaji Rao from time to time as demanded. It is an intentional defraud made by the accused involving in the same. Therefore, the grant of anticipatory bail to the present accused cause delay in investigation. As such, accused No.4 should not be granted bail. I.O. submits that I.O. has to summon the accused persons and take their statements. None of the accused persons are able to be secured inspite of attempt made by the I.O. If anticipatory bail is granted, it will cause delay in conclusion of investigation. As such, As such, bail petition be rejected. 4 Crl.Misc. No.70/2023

6. Heard the arguments of Learned Public

Prosecutor and Learned counsel for the petitioner. Perused the petition, objection and other materials on record.

7. Having done so, the following points will arise

for my consideration: (1) Whether the petitioner has made out grounds for granting anticipatory bail under Section 438 of Cr.P.C.? (2) What order?

8. My findings on the above points are as under:

POINT No.1 .. In the Affirmative POINT No.2 .. As per final order for the following: R E A S O N S

9. POINT No.1:- On going through the materials

placed on record, the amount was paid to one Shivaji Rao. The alleged offences are triable with Magistrate with regard to the fraud and I.O. has submitted C.D. Further, I.O. has to record the statement of witnesses. Accordingly, on the basis of the materials on record, this court satisfies to grant conditional bail as his name is not specified by the complainant. In the remand application, the name of the present accused is appeared. Accordingly, the petition filed by the petitioner is allowed. Hence, I answer the Point No.1 in the Affirmative. 5 Crl.Misc. No.70/2023

10. POINT No.2:- In view of my findings on point

No.1, I proceed to pass the following: O R D E R Bail petition filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C., by the petitioner is allowed. In the event of arrest, respondent police are directed to release the petitioner in connection with case in Cr. No.141/2022 registered for the offences punishable u/sec. 406, 420, 465, 468, 471, 472, 504, 506 r/w. Sec.34 of IPC and Sec.66(B) of Information Technology Act, on executing his personal bond for Rs.1,00,000/-, with one surety for the likesum on the following conditions:

1. The petitioner shall appear before the IO within 10 days from the date of receipt of this order;

2. The petitioner shall not tamper with the prosecution witnesses either directly or indirectly in any manner;

3. The petitioner shall appear before court regularly;

4. The petitioner shall not abscond from the residence and should furnish the address proof to the concerned police;

5. The petitioner shall not involve in any kind of offence;

6. The petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction without prior permission of jurisdictional court ; 6 Crl.Misc. No.70/2023

If any of the above conditions violates, the IO is at liberty to move for cancellation of bail. (Dictated to the Judgment Writer, transcript thereof is corrected, signed and pronounced by me on this the 12th day of January 2023.) (Rajesh Karnam. K) 69th Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bangalore. 7 Crl.Misc. No.70/2023 Order pronounced in open court, vide separate order.

ORDER

Bail petition filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C., by the petitioner is allowed. In the event of arrest, respondent police are directed to release the petitioner in connection with case in Cr. No.141/2022 registered for the offences punishable u/sec. 406, 420, 465, 468, 471, 472, 504, 506 r/w. Sec.34 of IPC and Sec.66(B) of Information Technology Act, on 8 Crl.Misc. No.70/2023 executing his personal bond for Rs.1,00,000/­, with one surety for the likesum on the following conditions:

1. The petitioner shall appear before the IO within 10 days from the date of receipt of this order;

2. The petitioner shall not tamper with the prosecution witnesses either directly or indirectly in any manner;

3. The petitioner shall appear before court regularly;

4. The petitioner shall not abscond from the residence and should furnish the address proof to the concerned police;

5. The petitioner shall not involve in any kind of offence;

6. The petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction without prior permission of jurisdictional court.

If any of the above conditions violates, the IO is at liberty to move for cancellation of bail. 69th Addl.C.C. & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.