1
Crl.Misc.5987/2022
IN THE COURT OF THE LXVIII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND
SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY (CCH-69)
Dated this the 27 th day of June 2022
:PRESENT:
Sri.Sabappa, B.Com., LLB (Spl.)
LXVIII Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru City.
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.5987/2022
PETITIONERS :
1.

Gurumurthy,
S/o Late Chinnappa,
Aged about 56 years,
2.

Bhagyamma,
W/o Gurumurthy,
Aged about 52 years,
3.

G. Santhosh,
S/o Gurumurthy,
Aged about 32 years,
4.

G. Indushri,
D/o Gurumurthy,
Aged about 29 years,
5.

G. Jagadish,
S/o Gurumurthy,
Aged about 28 years,
Petitioners No.1 to 5 are
R/at No.54, Vadarapalya Village,
J.P.Nagar 8th Block, Bangalore – 78.

2
Crl.Misc.5987/2022
6.

Mrs. Prabhavathy,
W/o Thimmaraju,
Aged about 44 years,
7.

T. Venu,
S/o Thimmaraju,
Aged about 25 years,
8.

T. Kavya,
D/o Thimmaraju,
Aged about 44 years,
Petitioners No.6 to 8 are
R/at No.54, Vadarapalya Village,
J.P.Nagar 8th Block, Bangalore.
(By Sri. K. Nataraj, Adv.,)
V/s
RESPONDENT
:
State by;
Konanakunte Police Station,
Bengaluru.

(Represented by Public Prosecutor)
ORDER ON BAIL PETITION U/SEC.438 OF CR.P.C.
This petition is filed by the petitioners under Sec.438 of
Cr.P.C.,
seeking
anticipatory
bail
in
connection
with
Cr.No.168/2022 registered by the Konanakunte Police, for the
offences punishable under Secs.120B, 420 & 417 of I.P.C.
2.

The brief facts of the case of the petitioners is that, the
3
Crl.Misc.5987/2022
respondent police registered case in Cr.No.168/2022 against the
petitioners on the basis of the complaint lodged by one
Sri. Ramu.A.C. It is alleged in the complaint that, the petitioners
owned properties measuring 1 acre 18 guntas situated at Sy.No.78,
Kembathahalli, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk and
Sy.No.33/3, Gollahalli, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bangaloe South Taluk,
measuring 1 acre 24 guntas. The said properties were acquired by
the BDA. The BDA had awarded compensation and also allotted
sites to them. The petitioners agreed to sell the said sites to the
complainant and received amount from the complainant by entering
into agreement with the complainant. But petitioners have got
registered the said sites in the name of Lokesh, Karthik and
Mallappa and cheated the complainant. Hence, the complaint.
Therefore, the petitioners apprehending their arrest by the
respondent police. Hence, they have filed this anticipatory bail
application.
3. The grounds urged by the petitioners are as under.
The petitioners submitted that, the allegation against them
are purely civil litigation. The complainant had entered into
agreement of sale dated 02.04.2019 with the petitioners with
respect of the said alleged site, in the event of any such agreement
was in existence the complainant is entitled to enforce the same
elsewhere, but the complainant is trying to enforce the same
through the respondent police with tremendous threat and
blackmail. Therefore, this is nothing but a abuse process of law.

4
Crl.Misc.5987/2022
It is further submitted that, the complainant himself brought
the purchasers and he himself has forced to execute the sale deed
in favour of Mallappa and Karthik. Through them the complainant
had already received the consideration and he himself has sold and
negotiated with them. Subject to realisation of the cheque the
complainant had undertaken to handover the original documents to
the custody of the purchasers. Based on the created and concocted
documents, the complainant threatened to pay Rs.30,00,000/-.
Therefore, the petitioners issued legal notice to the complainant.
Petitioners are illiterates and farmers who are depending upon
agriculture. By misusing the illiteracy, the complainant has created
documents with an intention to defraud the rights and interests of
the petitioners. The matter is purely civil in nature. There is no
necessity for custodial enquiry. Moreover, there is no recovery.
Petitioners are residents of Bangalore. Petitioners No.1, 2 and 6 are
senior citizens. Petitioner No.5 and 7 are the bread winner of their
family. They are ready to co-operate for further investigation. They
are ready to abide by all the conditions imposed by this Court. They
are ready and willing to furnish surety for the satisfaction of the
Court. Hence, sought for grant of anticipatory bail.
4.

The learned Public Prosecutor has filed objections to
the bail petition along with the report of the P.S.I, Konanakunte
police station, contending that, the petitioners since from the date of
incident have absconded and not secured for investigation. In the
objections the learned Public Prosecutor has narrated the facts as
5
Crl.Misc.5987/2022
stated in the FIR. The investigation of the case is under progress.
The petitioners are involved in the alleged offences. The petitioners
have committed heinous offence. If the petitioners are granted bail,
there is every chance that they may abscond and not co-operate
with the investigation and may tamper the evidence. Therefore, the
P.P has sought for rejection of bail.
5.
6.

Heard both sides. Perused the materials on record.
The points that arise for my consideration are:
1. Whether the petitioners have made out
sufficient grounds for grant of anticipatory bail
as sought for?
2. What order?

7.

My findings to the above points are as follows:
Point No.1 :
In the Affirmative,
Point No.2 :
As per final order,
for the following;
REASONS
8.

POINT No.1: On perusal of the bail petition objection
statement and other records, it is noticed that the respondent police
registered the FIR against the petitioners in Cr.No.168/2022. It is
further mentioned that, the alleged offences are U/Secs.417, 420,
120(B) r/w 34 of IPC. One Ramu.A.C has submitted the complaint
before the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Bengaluru South
6
Crl.Misc.5987/2022
Division, Jayanagar, Bengaluru. On that ground, the police
registered the case against the petitioners. On perusal of the
records, it is noticed that there is exchange of legal notice and reply
notice between the parties. This goes to show that there is
transaction between the complainant and petitioners regarding
immovable properties. In the legal notice the counsel for the
complainant mentioned item No.1 to 4 of the immovable properties
situated at Banashankari. It goes to show that there is civil dispute
between the petitioners and complainant.
9. At this juncture, the petitioners contended that, they have
not committed any offences as alleged by the complainant.
Moreover, they are ready to co-operate for the investigation. They
are ready to abide by the conditions imposed by this Court. The
prosecution contended that, the petitioners have obtained huge
amount and cheated the complainant. The investigation is still going
on. In case petitioners are enlarged on bail, they may threaten the
prosecution witnesses, hamper the evidence, may abscond and no
co-operate for investigation. The alleged offences are grievous in
nature.
10. On this sort of allegations and counter allegations made
by the parties, on perusal of the bail petition and objection
statement, this Court feels that the alleged offences are not
punishable with death or imprisonment for life. The alleged offences
are triable by the Magistrate Court. The petitioners approached this
Court on the apprehension of arrest by the respondent police.

7
Crl.Misc.5987/2022
11. At this juncture, this Court feels that, while considering
the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail, a balance has to be struck
between two factors namely, no prejudice should be caused to the
free, fair and full investigation and there should be prevention of
harassment, humiliation and unjustified detention of the accused. In
view of the above discussion, I come to the conclusion that at this
stage the petitioners have made out sufficient grounds to enlarge
them on bail. The petitioners are permanent residents of Bangalore.
They are ready to abide by any conditions imposed by this Court
and they undertake to co-operate with the I.O for investigation.
Under such circumstances, this court come to conclusion that if
some stringent conditions are imposed on the petitioners and
granted bail, the apprehension of the prosecution could be
safeguarded. Otherwise the family of petitioners will be put to
humiliation.

Accordingly, I have answered point No.1 in the
Affirmative.
12.

POINT NO.2:
In view of my findings point No.1, I
proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
Bail petition filed by the petitioners under
Sec. 438 of Cr.P.C is hereby allowed.
Petitioners are ordered to be released on
anticipatory bail in the event of their arrest in
Cr.No.168/2022 registered by Konanakunte Police for
8
Crl.Misc.5987/2022
the offences punishable U/Secs.120B, 420, 417 r/w
Sec.34 of IPC, on executing their personal bonds for
Rs.1,00,000/- each with two sureties for the like sum on
the following conditions.
1. The petitioners shall appear before the IO
within 15 days from the date of this order and cooperate for investigation.
2. The petitioners shall not tamper with the
Prosecution witnesses either directly or indirectly in
any manner.
3. They shall co-operate for investigation by the
concerned police and regularly appear before the
concerned court as and when required.
4. They shall not abscond from the ordinary
residence and they should furnish the address proof to
the concerned police.
5. They shall not indulge in any kind of offence.
6. They shall not leave the jurisdiction of the
court without prior permission.
7. They shall mark the attendance in the respondent
P.S between 10.00 a.m to 6.00 p.m once in a month
i.e., on 2nd Sunday till filing of the final report.

9
Crl.Misc.5987/2022
If any of the above conditions violated the IO is
at liberty to move for cancellation of bail.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, typed by her directly on Computer,
revised, corrected and then pronounced by me in the open court on this
the 27 th day of June 2022)
(Sabappa)
LXVIII Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru City.

10
Crl.Misc.5987/2022
ORDERS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN
COURT, VIDE SEPARATE ORDER
Bail petition filed by the petitioners under
Sec. 438 of Cr.P.C is hereby allowed.
Petitioners are ordered to be released on
anticipatory bail in the event of their arrest in
Cr.No.168/2022
registered
by
Konanakunte
Police for the offences punishable U/Secs.120B,
420, 417 r/w Sec.34 of IPC, on executing their
personal bonds for Rs.1,00,000/- each with two
sureties for the like sum on the following
conditions.
1. The petitioners shall appear before the IO
within 15 days from the date of this order and cooperate for investigation.
2. The petitioners shall not tamper with the
Prosecution witnesses either directly or indirectly in
any manner.
3. They shall co-operate for investigation by
the concerned police and regularly appear before
the concerned court as and when required.
4. They shall not abscond from the ordinary
residence and they should furnish the address
proof to the concerned police.

11
Crl.Misc.5987/2022
5. They shall not indulge in any kind of
offence.
6. They shall not leave the jurisdiction of the
court without prior permission.
7. They shall mark the attendance in the
respondent P.S between 10.00 a.m to 6.00 p.m
once in a month i.e., on 2nd Sunday till filing of the
final report.
If any of the above conditions violated the
IO is at liberty to move for cancellation of bail.

LXVIII A.C.C & S.J,
Bengaluru City.

12
Crl.Misc.5987/2022