KABC010159372022
IN THE COURT OF LXV ADDL CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS
JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY (CCH-66)
PRESENT
SHRI. HEMANTH KUMAR. C.R ,
B.A.L., L.L.B.,
LXV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru.
Dated this the 21 st day of June, 2022
Crl.Misc.No.5930/2022
PETITIONER/S:-
JAYAKUMAR. V ,
s/o Venkatappa,
Aged about 37 years,
R/at No.AA 07, Concorde Silicon Valley,
Electronic City, Bengaluru-560100.
(By Sri. TM., Advocate)
V/s.
RESPONDENT/S:-
STATE OF KARNATAKA,
By HSR Layout Police Station,
Bengaluru.
(Rep. by Public Prosecutor)
ORDER ON PETITION FILED UNDER
SECTION 438 OF CR.P.C
This petition is filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C., seeking
anticipatory bail to the petitioner in Crime No.113/2022 registered by
2
Crl.Misc.No.5930/2022
the respondent HSR Layout police for offences punishable under
Sections 5 420, 504, 506 of IPC.
2.
Brief facts of the case.-
The complainant Smt. Vijayalakshmi has lodged complaint that
she along with her husband had been gone to the office of JR
properties of Jayakumar @ Appu, Moin Patel situated at Sector 4, 14 th
Main Road, 17th Cross, 1st Floor, HSR Layout, Bengaluru, it is further
alleged that she had gone to the said office on 09.01.2022, the said
company was selling sites at less price for a sum of Rs.12,00,000/and the petitioners even told that they would arrange for the loan. That
on 09.01.2022 to 28.01.2022 on various dates a sum of Rs.6,00,000/was sent by way of Paytm, Phonepay, cash and cheque, but the JR
properties did not arrange for loan and not even giving site and went
on postponing the same. The said Vishnu Sharma even had gone to
the office and asked about the site but the petitioners told that they
shall not give any site to do whatever want and scolded the
complainant in filthy language. Thus, the complainant has lodged the
complaint against the petitioner for having cheated and not giving site
or money. On receipt of the said complaint the police have registered
the case in Crime No.113/20222 for the offences punishable under
Sections 420, 504, 506 of IPC.
3.
The petitioner being aggrieved by the same has filed the
present petition seeking anticipatory bail on the following among other
grounds. The petitioner has contended that the complaint is false and
frivolous the same is lodged only to implicate the petitioner.
The
petitioner submits that he is innocent of the alleged offences and not
committed any offences as mentioned in the complaint. The petitioner
submits that the said complaint is filed with vengeance and also the
3
Crl.Misc.No.5930/2022
petitioner submits that he is ready and willing to abide by the
conditions imposed by this court and shall co-operate with the
investigation. Hence, prays to allow the bail petition.
4.
After service of notice, the learned Public Prosecutor has
filed objection contending that the investigation is still in progress and
the statement of the witnesses and documents have to be collected
and also the learned Public Prosecutor has also further contended that
the petitioner has cheated several public stating that they will provide
site and have collected huge money and they have also not returned
the said money. As such they cheated several public. The learned
Public Prosecutor has further contended that if the accused is released
on bail there is every chances of threatening the prosecution witness
and absconding and hampering the trial. Hence, prays to reject the bail
petition.
5.
Heard the arguments. Now the points that arise for my
consideration.-
6.
1.
Whether the petitioner has made out
sufficient ground to allow the petition
under Section 438 of Cr.P.C?
2.
What order?
My answer to the above points are.Point No.1:–
In the Affirmative
Point No.2:–
As per final order
for the following
REASONS
7.
Point No.1:-
The counsel for petitioner has addressed
the arguments contending that the petitioner is innocent of the alleged
4
Crl.Misc.No.5930/2022
offence and they have not committed any offences as alleged in the
complaint and also the petitioner counsel has further contended that
the petitioner is noway concerned to the said JR properties and they
are not running any business in the name of JR properties.
The
petitioner has produced the registration certificate of JR properties
which is standing in the name of one Vinod Kumar. The petitioner
further contended that he has not involved in the alleged offence and
he is ready and willing to abide by the conditions. Hence prays to allow
the bail petition.
8.
The learned Public Prosecutor has addressed the
arguments contending that the petitioner has cheated several persons
by collecting the money with a promise to give the site but the
petitioner has not given site nor return the money to the public. The
learned Public Prosecutor has further contended that the allegation in
the complaint prima facie shows that the petitioner is involved in the
alleged offence and if the bail petition is allowed the petitioner might
tamper with the prosecution witnesses, abscond and hamper the trial.
Hence prays to reject the bail petition.
9.
On perusal of the records produced by the prosecution
and the petitioner it is noticed that the complainant has filed the
complaint alleging that he has given money to the petitioner with an
intention to buy property in JR properties and also the complainant has
alleged that he has made several payments through paytm, phonepay,
cash and cheque. The JR properties have not arranged for loan and
not given site. As such the the complaint has been lodged whereas
the petitioners have produced the document showing that the
petitioners are not the proprietors of the JR properties whereas one
5
Crl.Misc.No.5930/2022
Vinod Kumar is the proprietor of the said JR properties. Wheres the
complainant has made specific allegation against the petitioners that
they have collected the money from the complainant as the
investigation is still in progress and the offences alleged against the
petitioners are not punishable with imprisonment for life or death. The
petitioners have produced that they are not proprietor of JR properties
as such the same requires investigation as to who has collect the
money from the complainant. The apprehension of the prosecution is
that if the bail is granted to the petitioners, the petitioners might
threaten the prosecution witnesses and abscond and hamper the trial.
The said apprehension of the prosecution can be satisfied by imposing
stringent conditions.
Admittedly, the petitioners are resident of the
address shown in the cause title. If at all during the course of trial, the
prosecution is able to prove the guilt of the petitioners, they can be
dealt with in accordance with law. Considering all these facts, I am of
the opinion that the petitioners can be enlarged on bail by imposing
certain conditions, which would meet the apprehension of prosecution.
Accordingly, I answer the point No.1 in the Affirmative.
10.
Point No.2:- In view of the findings given on point No.1,
I proceed to pass the following.ORDER
The petition filed by the petitioners under
Section 438 Cr.P.C., is allowed.
The respondent HSR Layout police are
directed to release the petitioners on bail in the
event of their arrest in Crime No.113/2022
registered for the offences punishable under
6
Crl.Misc.No.5930/2022
Sections 420, 504, 506 of IPC, on execution of
personal bond for Rs.1,00,000/- each with two
sureties for the likesum subject to the following
CONDITIONS:1.
The petitioners shall appear before the
court on all dates of hearing and shall cooperate with the investigation.
2.
The petitioners shall appear before the
I.O whenever they are called upon for the
purpose of investigation.
3.
The petitioners shall not tamper with the
evidence and shall not threaten, induce
allure the prosecution witnesses in what
so ever manner.
4.
The petitioners shall not involve in any
criminal activity.
5.
The petitioners shall not leave jurisdiction
of the trial court without prior permission
of the trial court.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and then pronounced
by me in the Open Court on this 21st day of June, 2022)
(HEMANTH KUMAR. C.R)
LXV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru.