1
Crl.Misc. No.5939/2022
IN THE COURT OF THE XXIII ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS
JUDGE & SPECIAL JUDGE ( P.C. Act) BENGALURU (C.C.H.No.24)
Dated: This the 12th day of July, 2022
:PRESENT:
LAKSHMINARAYANA BHAT K.
XXIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge
cum Special Judge ( P.C. Act),
Bengaluru Urban District, Bengaluru City.
Crl.Misc. No.5939/2022
Petitioner :
K.N.Ramesh,
S/o.Late K.P.Nanjappa,
Aged about 64 years,
R/o.No.76, Srimathi, 5th cross,
Bapuji Badavane, Chandra layout,
Bengaluru – 40.
(By Sri Chandrashekara K., Advocate)
-Versus-
Respondent :
The State of Karnataka, represented by
The Station House officer, The Anti
Corruption Bureau Police Station,
Bengaluru City, Bengaluru.
(By the Public Prosecutor)
ORDER
The petitioner has knocked the doors of this Court
under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973
2
Crl.Misc. No.5939/2022
( in short the Cr.P.C.) seeking an order of anticipatory bail
in Crime No.46/2019 registered by the respondent-police.

2. The short facts leading to the present petition as
stated by the petitioner are that the respondent-police
registered the case against him in Crime No.46/2019. It is
submitted that he is innocent of the charges leveled
against him. The respondent-police have foisted a false
case at the instance of the complainant.

The other
accused named in the FIR are already enlarged on bail by
this Court.

He is
in no way connected with the alleged
offence and the prosecution has not placed any materials
to connect him to the alleged incident. The arrest and his
presence is not required for the custodial interrogation.
The offence alleged against him is not punishable with
death or imprisonment for life. After registering the case
there
is
serious
apprehension
of his
arrest
by the
respondent-police. He is suffering from old age ailments.
For the aforesaid reasons, the petitioner has prayed for an
3
Crl.Misc. No.5939/2022
order directing his release on anticipatory bail under
Section 438 of the Cr.P.C.

3. The prosecution has filed objection to the petition
admitting the registration of the case against the petitioner
and other accused by the respondent-police in Crime
No.46/2019. As per its contention, the complainant had
purchased property in Site No.01 formed in Sy.No.11/1 of
Kowdenahally village, K.R. Puram hobly, from Mr. Anwar
Khan in the year 1993.

In 2009 the
BBMP notified the
property of the complainant for the purpose of acquisition
for widening the road.

The
aforesaid Anwar khan has
obtained the signature of the complainant on documents
and by misappropriation, he has obtained the Transfer of
Development
Rights
(TDR)
and
Development
Right
Certificate (DRC) from the BBMP in collusion with officers of
the
BBMP
and
other
TDR
brokers.

Therefore,
the
complainant has filed objection on 3.3.2016 before the Joint
Commissioner,
cancellation
of
BBMP,
the
Mahadevapura,
TDR.

In
Bengaluru
pursuance
of
for
these
4
Crl.Misc. No.5939/2022
developments, the respondent-police registered the case
and obtained previous approval against the petitioner and
other accused for conducting investigation.

The petitioner
when he was working in BBMP has not complied the
circulars dated 5.10.2009 and 19.5.2012 while mentioning
the required details in the check list the price of the
property, nature of the building and other valuables
without ascertaining the value of the said property.
According to the prosecution, the investigation of the case
is in progress and if the petitioner is released on bail, he
may interfere with investigation or there are chances of
tampering of the evidence.

For the aforesaid reasons, the
prosecution has prayed for rejection of the petition.

4.

Heard the arguments of both sides.

Perused
the grounds urged in the petition, objection and the other
materials placed on record. At this stage, the points that
would arise for determination are;
Point No1: Whether the petitioner has made out
sufficient grounds for granting an
order of
5
Crl.Misc. No.5939/2022
anticipatory bail in his favour under Section 438
of the Cr.P.C.?
Point No.2: What order?
5. The aforesaid points are answered as :
Point No.1 : in the affirmative
Point No.2 : as per the final order
for the following :
REASONS
6. Point No.1: The respondent-police registered the
case in Crime No.46/2019 on 12.12.2019 for the offence
punishable under Section 13(1)(a) read with Section 13(2)
of The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (in short the ‘PC
Act’) and Sections 408, 409, 420, 465, 468, 471 and 120B
read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The name of
the petitioner as on the date of registration of the case
was not finds place in column No.6 of the FIR. Thereafter,
on 26.7.2021, the police submitted requisition to this Court
to insert the name of the present petitioner as accused
No.17 in the case. In the said letter of requisition there is
reference to the effect that on 6.4.2021 and 9.4.2021, the
6
Crl.Misc. No.5939/2022
Under Secretary to the Government of Karnataka has
accorded the previous approval under Section 17A of PC
Act for proceeding with the investigation against the
present petitioner.

7.
petitioner
As per the materials placed on record the
was
working
as
the
Assistant
Executive
Engineer, Mahadevapura sub-division, BBMP, Bengaluru.
He is presently aged 64 years. Whether the petitioner was
actually involved in the commission of the offence is
matter of investigation.

a
He is the permanent resident of
Chandra layout, Bengaluru. He has produced copy of the
order passed by this Court in Criminal Miscellaneous
Nos.85/2020, 138/2020, 141/2020, 4111/2020, 4168/2020
and 5114/2020 under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. In the above
referred six cases the petitioners who are arraigned as
accused in Crime No.46/2019 were enlarged on bail.
Therefore, the petitioner being the accused and he is also
similarly placed in the said case is also entitled for bail.

7
Crl.Misc. No.5939/2022
8. The relevant factors for consideration at the time
of grant of bail under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. are the
nature and gravity of the offence, nature of the allegations
made against the petitioner, the chances of his availability
for the purpose of investigation and trial and the possibility
of tampering with the evidence etc. The bail is a rule and
jail is an exception.

At the stage of grant of bail,
the
courts should avoid an elaborate examination of the facts
of the case and detailed reasons touching upon merits
which may cause prejudice to the accused.

9.

After considering the above referred grounds
urged in the application, objection filed by the prosecution
and other accused are already released on bail, petitioner
is also entitled for an order of bail under Section 438 of the
Cr.P.C. The arrest and detention of the petitioner is not
required custodial interrogation.
his
presence
can
be
investigation and trial.

secured
If he is released on bail,
for
the
purpose
of
The apprehension raised by the
prosecution can be safeguarded by imposing stringent
conditions.

8
Crl.Misc. No.5939/2022
Therefore,
point No.1 is answered in the
affirmative.
10.

Point No.2:- In view of the above findings on
point No.1, the petition
deserves to be allowed and this
court proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
The petition filed under Section 438 of the
Cr.P.C. is allowed.
In the event of arrest of the petitioner Mr.
K.N.Ramesh in Crime No.46/2019 registered by the
respondent-police, he shall be released on bail on
his executing the personal bond for Rs.2,00,000/with a solvent surety
to the satisfaction of the
concerned police officer subject to the following
conditions:
1. The petitioner is directed to voluntarily
surrender
himself
before
the
respondent police/investigating officer
in crime No.46/2019 within 20 days
from the date of this order. If he fails to
comply the direction, the order of bail
automatically stands canceled on the
lapse of 20 days.

9
Crl.Misc. No.5939/2022
2. He shall not directly or indirectly make
any inducement, threat or promise to
any witness acquainted with the facts of
the case or to dissuade them from
disclosing such facts to the Court or to
any police officer.
3. He
shall
co-operate
with
the
investigation of the case as and when
directed and appear regularly before the
court during the trial.
4. He shall not leave the country without
the prior permission from the Court.
(Dictated to the judgment-writer, transcribed &
computerized by him, corrected, signed by me and then
pronounced in the Open Court on this the 12 th day of July,
2022).

(LAKSHMINARAYANA BHAT K)
XXIII Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge
& Special Judge (PCA), Bengaluru.

10
Crl.Misc. No.5939/2022
Orders pronounced in the open Court
vide separate orders.
The final order
portion reads as under:
ORDER
The petition filed under Section 438
of the Cr.P.C. is allowed.
In
the
petitioner
event
Mr.

of
arrest
K.N.Ramesh
of
in
the
Crime
No.46/2019 registered by the respondentpolice, he shall be released on bail on his
executing
the
personal
bond
for
Rs.2,00,000/- with a solvent surety to the
satisfaction of the concerned police officer
subject to the following conditions:
1) The petitioner
is directed to
voluntarily surrender himself before the
respondent police/investigating officer in
crime No.46/2019 within 20 days from the
date of this order. If he fails to comply the
direction, the order of bail automatically
stands canceled on the lapse of 20 days.
2) He shall not directly or indirectly
make any inducement, threat or promise
11
Crl.Misc. No.5939/2022
to any witness acquainted with the facts
of the case or to dissuade them from
disclosing such facts to the Court or to
any police officer.
3) He shall co-operate with
the
investigation of the case as and when
directed and appear regularly before the
court during the trial.
4) He shall not leave the country
without the prior permission from the
Court.
(LAKSHMINARAYANA BHAT K.),
XXIII Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge
& Special Judge (PCA), Bengaluru.