KABC010086012024 IN THE COURT OF XLV ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY (CCH-46) DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF APRIL, 2024 PRESENT: Sri Manjunatha, B. A. LL.B., XLV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru. CRL.MISC. No.3048/2024 Petitioner Hithesh Ramesh C/o Ramesh Shesappa, a/a 35 Yrs., r/o Chandra Nivasa, 12th A Cross, Virupakshnagara, Bangaore, Karnataka. (By Sri/Smt: P. K. Ranjan, Advocate) AND Respondent State by Basaveshawaranagar P.S., Bengaluru. (By the learned Public Prosecutor) ORDER ON BAIL PETITION FILED U/S.438 OF Cr.P.C., The learned counsel for the petitioner has filed bail petition U/s.438 of Cr.P.C., to grant anticipatory bail in favour of the petitioner and also direct the respondent police to release him on bail in the event of his arrest in Crime No.32/2024 in the interest of justice. 2 Crl.Misc.No.3048/2024

2. On the basis of the complaint filed by NRajajlakshmi,

a/a 40 Yrs., the case was registered against the petitioner in Crime No.32/2024 for the offence punishable U/s.420 of IPC. Now the petitioner being accused apprehending his arrest at the hands of respondent police. Hence, the petitioner is constrained to file this petition and thereby he has prayed for allowing the petition.

3. The learned Public Prosecutor has filed objection in

detail along with the report of I.O., by reiterating the contents of the Complaint and contended that this bail petition is not maintainable in law or on facts of the case. Further, she has reiterated the contents of Complaint and also contended that if petitioner is granted bail then he may involve in causing mental harassment to the Complainant and also chance of destroying the evidence and hamper the witnesses and has prayed for dismissal of the bail petition.

4. Heard the arguments on both sides and perused the

materials on record.

5. The following points that arises for consideration of this

Court:

1. Whether the Petitioner has made out sufficient

grounds for granting anticipatory bail in his favour in Cr. No.32/2024 of Basaveshwaranagar P.S., at this stage as soughtfor?

2. Whatorder?

6. This court has answered the above points are as

under: 3 Crl.Misc.No.3048/2024 PointNo.1 : IntheNegative PointNo.2 : Asperfinalorder forthefollowing:- R E A S O N S

7. Point No. 1 : The documents produced by the

Petitioner discloses that a case was registered against the petitioner on the basis of complaint filed by Smt. Rajalakshmi, a/a 40 Yrs., case was registered in Crime No.32/2024 for the offence punishable U/s.420 of IPC. It is the case of the complainant that the accused introduced to her through facebook, and got introduced himself as he is in service of Government Servant, and on 7.9.2023 at 12.00 they met and talked together, the accused proposed to marry and and they in touch, and on 10.09.2023 the accused called the complainant, and he is in need of money, as his sister met with an accident, accordingly complainant transferred Rs.50,000/- to the account of brother-in-law of accused by name Preetham through google pay, 11.09.2023 Rs.1,40,000/- through NEFT, on 20.09.2023 Rs.45,000/- and Rs.3,800 through google pay. The accused made believe the complainant to marry, and on the false pretext received amount and without returning the same cheated her. Accordingly complainant has lodged the complaint against the accused before respondent police. 8.The contention of petitioner is that he is innocent of the alleged offences. The complainant has implicated the petitioner, though the said offence is not committed by him. He 4 Crl.Misc.No.3048/2024 is ready to abide by the terms and conditions and furnish surety to the satisfaction of the Court and prayed to allow the petition. 9.The learned Public Prosecutor has contended that the respondent police have registered FIR in Crime No.32/2024 against the petitioner for the offence punishable U/s.420 of IPC. The investigation of the case is in progress and at this stage if the petitioner is enlarged on bail, who has committed the offence with an intention to cheat the complainant and the transaction being financial, petitioner might abscond and would not be available for investigation. It is also the specific contention and objection of the prosecution is that the petitioner with intention and knowledge has committed the offences as alleged and if he is released on bail he would tamper, threatened the complainant and her witnesses and hamper the investigation. Further it is the case of the prosecution that the materials on record prima-facie discloses the involvement of the petitioner in commission of the alleged offences and at this stage the contention of petitioner that he is innocent of the offences alleged against him does not stand for consideration. It is not desirable on the part of this Court at this stage to come to the conclusion that the petitioner is innocent of the offences alleged against her. 10.It is pertinent to note that even for the sake of argument, it is accepted that there is prima facie case against the petitioner for the offence punishable U/s.420 of IPC, the said offences are not punishable with death or imprisonment for life, the offence U/s.420 of IPC is non-bailable, triable by the Magistrate. 5 Crl.Misc.No.3048/2024 11.It is well settled principle of law that the granting of bail is discretionary power of the Court and every case should be considered on the basis of facts of each case. On perusal of the entire records placed before the Court, prima facie it discloses that the petitioner on the false pretext of marrying the complainant received totally Rs.2,78,800/- and without marrying her nor returning the amount, cheated the complainant by abusing, insulting and threatening her with life. On considering all these aspects prima facie discloses the involvement of petitioner in committing the alleged offences against the complainant and involved in financial transaction with the complainant. Further at this stage it is found that when there is allegations cheating of complainant and misuse of Rs.2,78,800/-, interrogation of the petitioner is very much required. If the petitioner is enlarged on bail that there is likelihood that he might not co-operate with the investigation and might continue the harassment to the complainant. It is pertinent to note the petitioner alleged to have committed the offence and at this stage, if the petitioner is enlarged on bail, it would be very difficult for investigation. The materials facts before the Court prima facie discloses the involvement of petitioner in committing the alleged offences against women and society. In support of his contention the petitioner has produced the copy copy of the salary slip and appointment letter of complainant to show the financial status of the defacto complainant. At this stage, the gravity and seriousness of the offences and the direct involvement of the accused/petitioner in cheating has to be considered in priority while considering the 6 Crl.Misc.No.3048/2024 anticipatory bail to the petitioner, when there is serious allegation of cheating and threatening with life to the complainant. It is clear that there appears to be prima facie case made out by the prosecution that an offence has been alleged to has been committed by the petitioner. It is pertinent to note that the investigation is not yet completed and if the petitioner is granted anticipatory bail for the offence as alleged, there is chance that he may hamper the investigation and also cause injuries to the complainant. The earlier bail petition of petitioner has been dismissed and now without any change of circumstances, once again the petitioner has filed the petition contending the same facts seeking the same relief. The petitioner has failed to make out any ground for granting anticipatory bail in his favour at this stage as sought for. Accordingly, I answer point No.1 in the Negative.

12. Point No.2: In view of answer of this court on point

No.1, this court pass the following:- O R D E R The bail petition filed by the petitioner U/s.438 of Cr.P.C. is hereby dismissed. (Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer directly on Computer, corrected by me and then pronounced in open Court on this the 8th day of April, 2024) (Manjunatha) XLV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru. Digitally signed by MANJUNATH MANJUNATHNAIK RAMA RAMA NAIK Date: 2024.04.25 16:53:50 +0530 7 Crl.Misc.No.3048/2024 Order pronounced in the open court vide its separate order O R D E R The bail petition filed by the petitioner U/s.438 of Cr.P.C. is hereby dismissed. (Manjunatha) XLV ACC & SJ, Bengaluru.