KABC010015912023
IN THE COURT OF THE LXII ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS
JUDGE
BENGALURU CITY [CCH.63]
Dated: This the 30 th day of January, 2023
Present: Sri. A. EARANNA, M.Com., L.L.M.,
LXII Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru City.
Crl.Misc.No. 505/2023
Petitioners
Gnanashekar
S/o Muniswamy
Aged about 30 years
R/at No.669.
12th Cross, Kumaraswamy Layout,
Bengaluru-560 078
By Sri. Ramakrishna S, Advocate.
Vs.

Respondent:
State by Hanumantahanagar
Police station
Bengaluru
Rep. by Public Prosecutor.

2
Crl.Misc.No. 505/2023
OR D E R
The petition is filed by the petitioners under Section
438 of Cr.P.C for an order of anticipatory bail.
2.

On
the
strength
of
complainant
the
Hanumanthanagar police have registered the case in Crime
No. 314/2022 for the offence punishable under Sections
120B, 409, 420 r/w 34 of I.P.C.
3. In the bail petition it is contended that the petitioner
is innocents and he has not committed the alleged offences.
The respondent police have falsely implicated the petitioner
in the case on hand on the basis of false complaint. The
petitioner no.9 is the businessman and respected person in
the public. The petitioner is having deep root in the society.
The respondent police are making hectic efforts to arrest the
petitioner and hence, on genuine apprehension of their
imminent arrest by the respondent Police, the petitioner is
constrained to file this petition for anticipatory bail.

The
petitioner is ready to abide by any conditions that may be
imposed by the Court and he is ready to furnish surety to
ensure their regular attendance before the concerned Court.
Inter alia, on these grounds, the petitioner pray for allow the
bail petition.

3
Crl.Misc.No. 505/2023
4.

Whereas,
the
learned
Public
Prosecutor
filed
objection along with report of I.O., by contending that the
petitioner is committed the offences punishable under
Sections 120B, 409, 420 r/w 34 of I.P.C. At this stage, the
petitioner is granted with anticipatory bail, the petitioner
may threaten the prosecution witnesses and he may destroy
the prosecution evidence or he may commit the similar kind
of offences and the possibility of petitioner fleeing away from
justice cannot be ruled out. Inter alia, on these grounds, the
learned Public Prosecutor prays for dismissal of the bail
petition.
5. Heard both sides. Perused the record.
6.Following points arise for consideration of this Court:
1.

Whether the petitioner has made out
ground to enlarge him on anticipatory
bail under Section 438 of Cr.P.C.?

2.

What Order?

7. My findings on the above Points are as follows:
Point No.1 –
Point No.2 –
In the Affirmative
As per Final Order, for the
following:
R E A S ON S
8. Point No.1: Brief facts of the case is that, the
complainant is the cooperative bank limited. The accused
4
Crl.Misc.No. 505/2023
Nos. 7 and 8 got sanctioned loan of Rs. 25,00,000/- from
the bank and same is unauthorised and same is not come
to the knowledge of the board of directors of complainant
bank. On verification it is found that on 11.4.2017 Board
meeting, the complainant bank had sanctioned the loan to
the accused Nos. 7 and 8 the same is recorded by the
accused No.3 and he signed. The valuator verified the
documents and valued the property and submitted the
report. The petitioner and other accused Nos. 2 to 6 have
colluded to each other and sanctioned the loan of Rs.
25,00,000/- each to the accused Nos. 7 and 8 and all
cheated to the bank. Hence the complaint. Based on the
complaint the respondent police have registered the case in
Crime No.314/2022 for the offence punishable U/s 120B,
409, 420 r/w 34 of I.P.C.
9.

Counsel
for
the
petitioner
argued
that
the
petitioner has not committed any offence as alleged by the
complainant police. Alleged offence is not punishable with
life imprisonment or death sentence. The petitioner is ready
to abide by the conditions imposed by the Court. Therefore
he prays to allow the bail application. Learned Public
Prosecutor have argued that if the accused released on bail
then there is chances of abscond and there is chances of
5
Crl.Misc.No. 505/2023
destroy the material objects and threaten the prosecution
witnesses. Therefore she prays to reject the bail application.
10. On perusal of the prosecution papers it reveals
that one D.Krishna, the Manager of the said co-operate
bank
has
lodged
B.M.Shivakumar,
that
the
Devika.T.V,
complaint
C.V.

against
the
Balagangadhar,
P.V.Prakash, D.G. Boregowda, R.M. Nagabhushangowda,
Shivaraj and valuator L.Guruprasad.

All the said persons
mingled and they have without sanction of the loan by
director of the said co-operative bank without sanctioning
the loan, the above said persons have created the
documents stating that the Director of the bank has
sanctioned the loan of Rs. 25,00,000/- to B.M.Shivakumar,
Devika.T.V. As per the averments of the complaint that the
above said persons without any Bank Director concern or
resolution that the above said persons have created the
documents and sanctioned the loan to B.M.Shivakumar,
Devika.T.V. The present petitioner i.e., accused No. 9 has
agreed to sale agreed and the amount of Rs. 25,00,000/transferred to the M.Gnanashekar in the month of January
2019. Apart from this there is no allegation against the
accused no.9 and there is no allegation that the present
petitioner have created the documents nor involved in the
above said proceedings and the loan is sanctioned in the
name of present petitioner. Apart from this, there is no
6
Crl.Misc.No. 505/2023
allegation against the present petitioner. However, the
complaint lodged by the Managing director of the cooperate bank against the above said persons. But Devika
T.V and Shivakumar B.M has granted Rs. 25,00,000/- each
loan from the said bank society. On the other hand there is
no allegation against the said present petitioner that he has
created the document stating that the bank authorities
have granted loan. Thereafter at this stage, records it
reveals that the complainant has lodged the complaint
against the above said persons. The above said petitioner is
seems to be not involved in the present case. On the other
hand learned public prosecutor argued that the petitioner
has cheated the complainant and there is involvement of
huge amount. Hence the petitioner is not entitled for
anticipatory bail. On going through the records it reveals
that there is financial transaction between the complainant
and the petitioner. The alleged offences are not punishable
with death or imprisonment for life and same are triable by
the Court of Magistrate. Such being the case by considering
nature of the offence and considering the bail petition as
well as objection statement alleged offences are triable by
the Magistrate Court. Alleged offences are non bailable in
nature
and
not punishable
with
death
sentence
or
imprisonment for life. By considering the above facts this
7
Crl.Misc.No. 505/2023
Court is of the view that the petitioner is entitled for
anticipatory bail.
11. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Central
Bureau of investigation Vs. V.Vijay Sai Reddy 2013 (7)
SCALE 15 was pleased to express that; “28. While granting
bail, the court has to keep in mind the nature of
accusation, the nature of evidence in support thereof, the
severity of the punishment which conviction will entail, the
character of the accused, circumstances which are peculiar
to the accused, reasonable possibility of securing the
presence
of
the
accused
at
the
trial,
reasonable
apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with, the
larger interests of the public/ state and other similar
consideration. It has also to be kept in mind that for the
purpose of granting bail, the legislature has used the words
‘reasonable grounds for believing” instead of “the evidence”
which means the court dealing with the grant of bail can
only satisfy it as to whether there is a genuine case against
the accused and
that the prosecution will be able to
produce prima facie evidence in support of the charge. It is
not
expected,
at
this
stage,
to
have
the
evidence
establishing the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable
doubt.

8
Crl.Misc.No. 505/2023
12. The petitioner claims to be the permanent
resident of address shown in the cause title of the bail
petition. It is urged that the petitioner is ready and willing
to furnish surety to the satisfaction of this Court to ensure
his attendance before the I.O and the Court and he is also
ready to abide by any conditions imposed by Court. As
such, possibility of the abscondance of petitioners is too
remote.
13. The apprehension and interest of the prosecution
that the petitioners may tamper with the prosecution
witnesses, flee away from justice can be taken and
safeguarded by imposing some suitable conditions. Hence
by considering all these aspects, I am of the opinion that
the petitioners are entitled for bail and accordingly, I
answer the above Point No.1 in the Affirmative.
14. Point No.2: In view of my findings on Point No.1,
I proceed to pass the following:
OR D E R
The anticipatory bail petition filed by
the petitioners under Section 438 of Cr.P.C
is hereby allowed.
The
directed
respondent
police
to
the
enlarge
are
hereby
petitioners
on
9
Crl.Misc.No. 505/2023
anticipatory bail in the event of their arrest
in Crime No. 314/2022 of respondent Police
Station for the offence punishable under
Sections 120B, 409 and 420 r/w 34 of
I.P.C., on execution of their personal bond
for Rs.1,00,000/- with one surety for the
like sum on the following conditions:
1.That
the
petitioner
shall
appear
before the I.O. within 30 days from the date
of this order and shall co-operate in the
matter of investigation or whenever called
by the I.O.
2. That the petitioner shall mark his
attendance once in 30 days preferably on
2nd Saturday in between 10.00 AM to 5.00
PM before the Jurisdictional Police till filing
the final report.
3. That the petitioner shall not hold any
threat to the complainant and shall not
tamper
with
any
of
the
prosecution
witnesses directly or indirectly.
4. That the petitioner shall furnish his
residential address proof and that of her
surety.

10
Crl.Misc.No. 505/2023
5. That the petitioner shall not indulge
in similar type of offences in future.
6. That the petitioner shall appear
before the trial court regularly without fail
on receipt of the summons.
7. That if the petitioner fails to obey any
of the above said conditions, then this bail
order automatically stands canceled.
(Dictated to the Typist, directly on computer, typed by her,
revised and corrected by me and then pronounced in the
open court on this the 30 th day of January 2023)
(A. EARANNA)
LXII Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge,
(CCH-63), Bengaluru.