KABC010088642024
IN THE COURT OF THE LII ADDL. CITY CIVIL &
SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE (CCH-53)
Dated this the 4th day of April, 2024
PRESENT
Sri.B.G.Pramoda, B.A.L., LL.B.,
LII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bangalore.
Crl.Misc.No.3138/2024
Petitioner:
Sri.Hardik Gowda
S/o R.V.Prakash,
Aged about 38 years,
R/at No.6, 1st Cross,
2nd Stage, Indiranagar,
Bengaluru – 560038.
(By Sri.V.Srinivas, advocate)
-V/S-
Respondent :
State of Karnataka by
Yelahanka New Town police station,
Bengaluru.
(Represented
Prosecutor)
by
learned
Public
2
Crl.Misc.No.3138/2024
ORDER
This petition is filed by the petitioner u/Sec.438 of
Cr.P.C., praying to grant anticipatory bail to him in the event of
his arrest by respondent police in Cr.No.142/2024 of
Yelahanka New Town police station for the offences
punishable u/Sec.419, 420, 465, 471, 468 r/w Sec.34 of IPC,
pending on the file of learned 7th ACMM Bengaluru.
2.

It is stated in the petition that the respondent
Police have registered a case in Crime No.142/2024 against
the petitioner and others alleging the commission of offences
punishable u/Sec.419, 420, 465, 471, 468 r/w Sec.34 of IPC
on the basis of information given by one Ramesh C.
Jigajanagi. It is further stated in the petition that the petitioner
is innocent and he has not committed the alleged offences.
The respondent police are making hectic efforts to arrest the
petitioner. The petitioner has got reasonable apprehension of
his arrest by the respondent police. The petitioner is
permanent residents of address mentioned in the cause title.
The petitioner is law abiding and peace loving citizen and he
is living with his family and he is the sole bread earner of the
family. The petitioner is ready to abide by any terms and
conditions that may be imposed by the court for his
enlargement on bail. The petitioner is ready and willing to
offer surety to the satisfaction of the court. Hence, the
petitioner has prayed to allow the petition.

Crl.Misc.No.3138/2024
3
3.

The
learned
Public
Prosecutor
has
filed
objections to the bail application filed by the petitioner along
with I.O. report by opposing the grant of bail to the petitioner
by contending that the offences alleged to have been
committed by the petitioner is grave in nature and against to
the society. It is further stated in the objection that the present
petitioner and other accused have got created the documents
pertaining to the property of the informant and on the basis of
said created documents, the accused has got transferred the
said property and thereafter, thee accused No.1 and 2
together have given TDR in favour of accused No.3 bank and
thereby cheated the informant and committed the other
alleged offences. It is further stated in the objection that the
case is still investigation stage. If the petitioner is enlarged on
bail, he may commit the offences of similar nature in future.
The petitioner will abscond and he may not appear before
Investigating Officer and before the court. It is further stated in
the objection that if the petitioner is enlarged on bail he may
try to destroy the evidence and he may threaten the
prosecution witnesses. Hence, the Learned Public Prosecutor
has prayed to reject the petition filed by the petitioner.
4.

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

Crl.Misc.No.3138/2024
4
5.

Having done so, the following points will arise for
my consideration:
(1) Whether the petition filed by the
petitioner u/s.438 of Cr.P.C., is
deserves to be allowed?
(2) What order?
6.

My findings on the above points are as under:
(1) Point No.1
..

In the Affirmative
(2) Point No.2
..

As per final order
for the following:
REASONS
7.

Point
No.1:-
The
respondent
police
have
registered case in Crime No.142/2024 of Yelahanka New
Town police station against the petitioner and others by
alleging the commission of offences punishable u/Sec.419,
420, 465, 471, 468 r/w Sec.34 of IPC on the basis of the
information given by one Ramesh C. Jigajanagi. The
petitioner has produced the certified copy of FIR, Complaint
and other documents. The petitioner is shown as Accused
No.1 in the FIR.
8.

It is alleged in the FIR that the property belonging
to the informant bearing Sy.No.7, measuring 8 acre 16 gunta
of land situated at Shamarajapura village, was acquired for
widening
of
the
road.

The
informant
had
executed
5
Crl.Misc.No.3138/2024
unregistered GPA in favour of his friend Prakash only for the
purpose of getting DRC from BBMP. On 26.10.2023, when
BBMP has published TDR notice with respect to the said
property, the informant has enquired about the Prakash and
came to know that Prakash was died due to Covid – 19. As
such, the informant has told his another friend Nandish to
obtain the documents pertaining to his land. The informant
came to know that document was got created by showing the
execution of GPA by the informant in favour of accused No.1
in the Sub-Registrar office of Ganganagar. Further the sale
agreement alleged to have been executed on 24.06.2014 was
also got created. Those documents are got executed by third
person impersonating the informant. Further by utilizing the
created documents DRC certificate was obtained in the name
of the informant and accused No.1 has executed deed
conveyance of transferable development rights in favour of
accused No.2 company. Thereafter, the accused No.1 and 2
have given TDR to accused No.3 on 23.10.2014 and thereby
cheated the informant and committed the other alleged
offences.
9.

The offences alleged against the petitioner are
non-bailable in nature. Since FIR is registered against the
petitioner by alleging the commission of non-bailable offence,
the petitioner has filed the present petition under the
apprehension of his arrest. It is the allegation of the petitioner
6
Crl.Misc.No.3138/2024
that in view of registering the FIR against him, the respondent
police are making hectic efforts to arrest the petitioner. The
petitioner has contended that he is innocent and he has not
committed the alleged offences and his name has been
falsely implicated in the FIR. Since FIR is registered against
the petitioner by alleging the commission of non-bailable
offences, there is possibility of arrest of the petitioner by the
respondent police during the course of investigation of the
case.
10.

The offences alleged against the petitioner are
not exclusively punishable with death or imprisonment for life.
The alleged offences are triable by learned magistrate. The
investigation of the allegations made in the information is
mainly depending upon documentary evidence. Custodial
interrogation of the petitioner is not required for further
investigation of the case. As it is rightly pointed out by the
learned counsel for the petitioner, there is delay in lodging the
complaint. Whether the present petitioner and other accused
have got created all the documents as alleged in the
information or not and whether the petitioner and other
accused have cheated the informant in the manner as alleged
in the information or not and whether they have got created
the documents in order to cheat the informant or not and
whether they have cheated the informant with the said
Crl.Misc.No.3138/2024
7
alleged created documents or not has to be adjudicated only
after full-fledged trial. Whether the allegation made in the
complaint would attract the commission of offence of cheating
and other alleged offences or not has to be decided on merits
of the case. The petitioner has also given reply to the legal
notice issued by the informant. He has also produced
document
to
show
that
he
has
already
paid
his
Rs.49,00,000/- to the informant through bank transfer.
11. Further, the petitioner is ready to abide by any
terms and conditions imposed by the court for
his
enlargement on bail. He is also ready to furnish surety to the
satisfaction of the court for his appearance before the
Investigating Officer. He is also ready to co-operate with the
investigation of the case. The petitioner is the permanent
resident of the address shown in the cause title. The
presence of the petitioner during the course of investigation of
the case can be secured by imposing suitable conditions.
The apprehension of Learned Public Prosecutor regarding
absconding
of the petitioner
and
regarding
petitioner
threatening the prosecution witnesses and destroying the
evidence can be make good by imposing suitable terms and
conditions. Further the apprehension of the informant can
also be make good by imposing suitable terms and
conditions. Under these facts and circumstances, I am of the
8
Crl.Misc.No.3138/2024
opinion that the application filed by the petitioner can be
allowed and petitioner can be granted anticipatory bail by
imposing suitable terms and conditions. Accordingly, I
answer point No.1 in the Affirmative.
12. Point No.2:- In view of my findings on point No.1, I
proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
The petition filed by the petitioner/ Accused No.1
u/Sec.438 of Cr.P.C., is hereby allowed.
The respondent police shall release the petitioner/
Accused No.1 on bail in the event of his arrest in Crime
No.142/2024 of Yelahanka New Town police station for
the offences punishable u/Sec.419, 420, 465, 471, 468
r/w Sec.34 of IPC, pending on the file of learned learned
7th ACMM, Bengaluru, on petitioner executing personal
bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with one surety for
likesum to the satisfaction of the Learned Magistrate on
the following further conditions:CONDITIONS
(1)
The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating
Officer within two weeks from the date of this order and
he shall furnish all necessary information and documents
to the Investigating Officer.

(2)
The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating
Officer as and when called for and he shall co-operate
with investigation of the case.

(3)
The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any
inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted
with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from
9
Crl.Misc.No.3138/2024
disclosing such facts to the court or any police officer or
any hamper with the evidence.
(4)
The petitioner shall not try to destroy evidence.

(5)
The petitioner shall not leave India without prior
permission of the concerned jurisdictional magistrate.

(6)
The petitioner shall not commit any offence of similar or
any other offence in future.

(7)
Violation of any of the aforesaid terms and conditions
would entitle for cancellation of bail of the petitioner.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, directly on computer, corrected and
then pronounced by me in the open court on this the 4th day of April, 2024).

(B.G.Pramoda)
LII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru.

10
Crl.Misc.No.3138/2024
11
Crl.Misc.No.3138/2024
12
Crl.Misc.No.3138/2024