1
Crl.Misc.5935/2022
IN THE COURT OF THE LXVIII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND
SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY (CCH-69)
Dated this the 01 st day of July 2022
:PRESENT:
Sri.Sabappa, B.Com., LLB (Spl.)
LXVIII Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru City.
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.5935/2022
PETITIONERS :
1.

K.B. Chethana,
S/o Badrinath K.G,
Aged about 38 years,
R/at No.7, Lalbagh Siddapura,
2nd Cross, Jayanagar 1st Block,
Bangalore – 560 011.

2.

Bhargavi .V.S,
D/o Sathish Kumar,
Aged about 28 years,
R/at No.15, G No,
8th Street, 7th Cross,
Jougupalya, Halasuru,
Bangalore – 560 008.

3.

Samrutha. V.S,
D/o V.K. Sathish Kumar,
Aged about 31 years,
R/at No.15, G No,
8th Street, 7th Cross, Jougupalya,
Halasuru, Bangalore – 560 008.

(By Sri. Mohan.C, Adv.,)
2
Crl.Misc.5935/2022
V/s
RESPONDENT
:
State by;
Hanumanthanagar 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.145/2022 registered by the Hanumanthanagar Police, for
the offences punishable under Secs.406, 420, 342, 504, 506 r/w
34 of I.P.C.
2.

The brief facts of the petitioners’ case is that, the
respondent police have registered case against the petitioners in
Cr.No.145/2022 based on the complaint filed by one Smt.
Shanthalakshmi, W/o Late K.N.Shyam Sundar. It is alleged that,
complainant and her husband came from Andhra Pradesh. They
had no Children. After the death of complainant’s husband,
complainant sold their Cloth shop and old house and she
purchased Flat in Ambika Apartment at Hindupura. She kept
remaining sale consideration amount in Karur Vysya Bank and
taken the interest for her livelihood. At that complainant’s sister son
Sathish and his wife Ambika i.e., accused No.1 and 2 came to
Ambika Apartment where complainant was residing and asked
3
Crl.Misc.5935/2022
complainant to come along with them. They will take care of her.
Believing their words, complainant came to Bangalore along with
them on 25.08.2019 and resided at Siri Exzatika Apartment,
No.108, Gondapalya, Subramanyapura, Bangalore and 5th Cross,
2nd Block, SBM Colony, BSK 1st Stage, Bangalore. Thereafter,
shifted to present address at Sai Skanda Apartment, Flat No.501,
6th Floor, Hanumanthanagar, 2nd Block, Bangalore. At that time,
accused No.1 and 2 have told the complainant that they will avail a
house for lease to the complainant and created the lease
agreement and took the signature of the complainant in the said
agreement by saying that for one room Rs.10 lakhs and 3 room
Rs.30 lakhs and remaining house Rs.22 lakhs. Thereafter, they
have taken a cheque for Rs.52 lakhs of Karur Vysya Bank.
Thereafter, they have not shown the house to the complainant.
Thereafter, complainant asked them to return her amount. At that
time, they have taken her entire golden ornaments from the
complainant. They threatened her if she refused to give the golden
ornaments. All the accused persons abused her in filthy language
and locked her in a room. Thereafter, on 08.01.2021 she called to
her brother Padmanabha Guptha and thereafter she went to her
brother’s house. Hence, complainant lodged complaint against the
petitioners.
3. The grounds urged by the petitioners is as follows:
It is submitted that, the respondent police are making hectic
efforts to arrest the petitioners. They are visiting the house of the
4
Crl.Misc.5935/2022
petitioners round the clock. Petitioners No.1 and 2 are husband and
wife and residing in the above said address. Accused No.1 and 2
are already enlarged on bail in Crl.Misc.8721/2021 passed by the
CCH-67. On the ground of parity, the present petitioners may be
enlarged on bail. The complaint is bald and does not reflect any
attributes towards this petitioners. FIR and complaint discloses that
the entire allegations made by the complainant is financial dispute
and property dispute. It is purely civil in nature. The alleged incident
took place in 25.08.2019. After lapse of 3 years the complainant
has filed the present case. For the same cause of action, the
complainant has lodged several cases against the petitioners. In
the year 2019, the complainant had lodged complaint before CCB
Police, Hanumanthanagar Police station, Kumaraswamy Layout
Police Station etc., In order to harass and humiliate the petitioners.
It clearly goes to show that the complainant is in the habit of lodging
false complaint. The petitioners have not at all involved in the said
case directly or indirectly. The alleged offences are not punishable
with death or life imprisonment. They are ready to furnish surety for
their due appearance before the Court. Hence, prayed to allow this
petition.
4.

The learned Public Prosecutor has filed objections to
the bail petition contending that, the grounds stated by the
petitioner are far away from truth. In the objections the learned
Public Prosecutor has narrated the facts as stated in the FIR. It is
further contended the petitioners the investigation is under
5
Crl.Misc.5935/2022
progress. Accused No.1 and 2 are enlarged on bail as per the
orders passed in Crl.Misc.8721/2021 by CCH-67. The allegations
made against the petitioners is grave in nature. They petitioners are
absconded. They are required for further investigation. If the
accused/petitioners are granted bail they may abscond, hamper
and tamper the prosecution witnesses. Accused/petitioner is
absconding. Hence, on these grounds P.P has sought for rejection
of bail.
5.

Heard both sides. Perused the materials on record.

6. 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 :
Point No.2 :
In the Affirmative,
As per final order,
for the following;
REASONS
8.

POINT No.1: I have gone through the contents of bail
application, objections of the public prosecutor and records
produced before this Court. It is the case of the petitioners that they
have not committed any offences as alleged by the complainant.
The incident took place in the year 2019. But the complaint is
6
Crl.Misc.5935/2022
lodged in June 2022. Hence, there is inordinate delayin lodging the
complaint. Moreover, the petitioners are ready to abide by terms
and conditions imposed by this Court. On the other hand, the
prosecution contended that, the petitioners are involved in the
alleged offences. If the petitioners are enlarged on bail, they may
abscond, tamper the prosecution witnesses etc.,
9.

On perusal of the complaint and FIR, it is noticed that
there is money transaction between the complainant and
petitioners. It is the case of the petitioners that accused No.1 and 2
who are the son and daughter-in-law of complainant’s sister
assured that they are going to lease a house to the complainant
and they have taken money from the complainant and they have
not provided the house. It is further noticed that, except oral say of
the complainant, at this stage there are no materials placed by the
prosecution to believe that the petitioners are involved in the
alleged offences.
10. At the same time on perusal of the FIR and complaint,
the alleged offences are not punishable with death or imprisonment
for life. The alleged offences are triable by the Magistrate Court.
Moreover, the petitioners are permanent residents of Banglaore.
They are having movable and immovable properties. It is further
noticed that accused No.1 and 2 are already granted bail in
Crl.Misc.8721/2021 passed by Hon’ble City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bangalore (CCH-67). The present petitioners are accused No.3 to 5
in this case. This fact is not disputed by the prosecution in the
7
Crl.Misc.5935/2022
objection statement. When the prime accused No.1 and 2 are
enlarged on bail in Sessions Court, it is presumed that on the
ground of parity, these petitioners are also entitled for bail.
9. 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. Thereby 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.145/2022
of
Hanumanthanagar
P.S.,
on
8
Crl.Misc.5935/2022
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.5935/2022
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 01 st day of July 2022)
(Sabappa)
LXVIII Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru City.

10
Crl.Misc.5935/2022
ORDERS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT,
VIDE SEPARATE ORDER
Bail petition filed by the
Sec. 438 of Cr.P.C is hereby allowed.

petitioners
under
Petitioners are ordered to be released on
anticipatory bail in the event of their arrest in
Cr.No.145/2022 of Hanumanthanagar P.S.,
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 co-operate 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.
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.

11
Crl.Misc.5935/2022