KABC010017512023
IN THE COURT OF THE LXII ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS
JUDGE
BENGALURU CITY [CCH.63]
Dated: This the 01 st day of February, 2023
Present: Sri. A. EARANNA, M.Com., L.L.M.,
LXII Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru City.
Crl.Misc.No. 561/2023
Petitioners
Sri. K.Sridhar S/o. Late
Krishnappa,
Aged about 51 years,
R/at. No. 9. 1st Main Road,
3rd Cross, Gollarahats,
Jayamahal, Bengaluru 560003.
By Sri. Sathish C Advocate.
V/s.

Respondent:
State by Kodigehalli Police station
Bengaluru
Rep. by Public Prosecutor.
O R DE R
The petition is filed by the petitioner/accused under
Section 438 of Cr.P.C for an order of anticipatory bail.

2
Crl.Misc.No. 561/2023
2. On the strength of complainant the Kodigehalli
police have registered the case in Crime No. 260/2022 for
the offence punishable under Sections 415, 416, 417, 418,
419, 420, 463, 464, 465, 466, 467, 468, 470 & 120B of
I.P.C.
3. Counsel for the petitioner stated in the bail petition
stating that the petitioner is innocent and he has not
committed the alleged offence. The respondent police have
falsely implicated the petitioner in the case on hand on the
basis of false complaint. The petitioner is the permanent
resident of his address shown in the cause title of the
petition. The petitioner is ready to abide by any conditions
that may be imposed by the Court and he is ready to
furnish surety to ensure his regular attendance before the
concerned Court. Inter alia, on these grounds, the petitioner
pray for allow the bail petition.
4. On the other hand, the learned public prosecutor
filed objection along with I.O report contending that the
police have registered the case against the petitioner for the
offences punishable U/s 415, 416, 417, 418, 419, 420, 463,
464, 465, 466, 467, 468, 470 & 120B of I.P.C and the said
offences are non-bailable in nature.

If the petitioner is
released on bail he may commit similar offences, he will
3
Crl.Misc.No. 561/2023
come in the way of trial, tampering of witnesses. Therefore,
prays to reject the bail petition.
5. Heard both sides. Perused the record.
6. Following points arise for consideration of this
Court:
1.

Whether the petitioner has made out
ground to enlarge him on anticipatory
bail under Section 438 of Cr.P.C.?

2.

What Order?

7. My findings on the above Points are as follows:
Point No.1 – In the Affirmative
Point No.2 – As per Final Order, for the
following:
R E A SON S
8. Point No.1: Brief facts of the case is that, one
Eshwari has lodged the complaint before the 7 th ACMM
stating that complainant has purchased the property from
Krishnamma and changed all revenue records in her name.
Complainant are in peaceful possession and enjoyment of
the property. On 26/09/2018 one Anil Kumar has
intimated the complainant that one Parikshith Yadav, Smt.
Eshwari
and
Soniya.K.Yadav
have
entered
into
sale
4
Crl.Misc.No. 561/2023
agreement dated 04/04/2018 with the said Anil Kumar
and agreed to sell the complainant property. After knowing
the same the complainant collected the copy of the
agreement from the Anil Kumar and saw that the
agreement was executed by Rakshith Yadav as Parikshith
Yadav and other members that Sharmila acted as Eshwari,
the said accused has impersonated the complainant and
executed the sale agreement. The accused have committed
the offences by fabricating the document.
9. Based on the complaint the Court has referred the
case to Kodigehalli police for investigation and conducted
U/s. 156(3) of Cr.P.C. As per the order of the Court the
Kodigehalli police have conducted the investigation and
registered the case in Crime No. 260/2022 for an offences
punishable U/s. 415, 416, 417, 418, 419, 420, 463, 464,
465, 466, 467, 468, 470 & 120B of I.P.C. The police have
submitted the report before the Court then the present
petitioner apprehended that the police may arrest at any
time. Therefore he prays to allow the bail petition he further
contended that he has not at all involved in any other
offences as alleged by the respondent police. Therefore he
prays to allow that bail petition.
10. On going through the records one Eashwari has
lodged the complaint before the Court, based on the
5
Crl.Misc.No. 561/2023
complaint the respondent police have conducted the
investigation and filed the report for the above said
offences. On going through the records it shows that there
is a impersonation and created the documents by showing
Rakshith Yadav as Parikshith Yadav and other members
that Sharmila acted as Eshwari. On going through the
entire records that the petitioner cheated the complainant,
in this regard the private complaint presented before the
Court
and
respondent
police
have
conducted
the
investigation. On going through the entire records it reveals
that the alleged offences are not punishable with life
imprisonment or death sentence and offences are triable by
the
Court
of
Magistrate.

The
apprehension
of
the
prosecution may be set at rest by imposing suitable
conditions. Therefore this Court is of the opinion that the
petitioner is entitled for anticipatory bail.
11. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Central
Bureau of investigation Vs. V.Vijay Sai Reddy 2013 (7)
SCALE 15 was pleased to express that; “28. While granting
bail, the court has to keep in mind the nature of
accusation, the nature of evidence in support thereof, the
severity of the punishment which conviction will entail, the
character of the accused, circumstances which are peculiar
to the accused, reasonable possibility of securing the
presence
of
the
accused
at
the
trial,
reasonable
6
Crl.Misc.No. 561/2023
apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with, the
larger interests of the public/ state and other similar
consideration. It has also to be kept in mind that for the
purpose of granting bail, the legislature has used the words
‘reasonable grounds for believing” instead of “the evidence”
which means the court dealing with the grant of bail can
only satisfy it as to whether there is a genuine case against
the accused and
that the prosecution will be able to
produce prima facie evidence in support of the charge. It is
not
expected,
at
this
stage,
to
have
the
evidence
establishing the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable
doubt.
12. The petitioner claims to be the permanent
resident of address shown in the cause title of the bail
petition. It is urged that the petitioner is ready and willing
to furnish surety to the satisfaction of this Court to ensure
his attendance before the I.O and the Court and he is also
ready to abide by any conditions imposed by Court. As
such, possibility of the abscondance of petitioner is too
remote.
13. The apprehension and interest of the prosecution
that the petitioner may tamper with the prosecution
witnesses, flee away from justice can be taken and
safeguarded by imposing some suitable conditions. Hence
7
Crl.Misc.No. 561/2023
by considering all these aspects, I am of the opinion that
the petitioner is entitled for bail and accordingly, I answer
the above Point No.1 in the Affirmative.
14. Point No.2: In view of my findings on Point No.1,
I proceed to pass the following:
O R DE R
The anticipatory bail petition filed by
the petitioner under Section 438 of Cr.P.C is
hereby allowed.
The
directed
respondent
police
to
the
enlarge
are
hereby
petitioner
on
anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest in
Crime No. 260/2022 of respondent Police
Station for the offence punishable under
Sections 415, 416, 417, 418, 419, 420, 463,
464, 465, 466, 467, 468, 470 & 120B of
I.P.C., on execution of his personal bond for
Rs.1,00,000/- with one surety for the like
sum to the satisfaction of learned 7th
ACMM,
Bengaluru,
on
the
following
conditions:
1.The petitioner shall join investigation
and co-operate with I.O for investigation.

8
Crl.Misc.No. 561/2023
2. The petitioner shall not tamper with
the prosecution evidence or influence the
prosecution witnesses directly or indirectly
in any manner.
3. The petitioner shall not indulge with
offence of like nature.
4. That the petitioner shall mark his
attendance once in 30 days preferably on
2nd Saturday in between 10.00 AM to 5.00
PM before the Jurisdictional Police till filing
the final report.
5. In case, if the petitioner violate any of
the
above
prosecution
mentioned
is
at
conditions,
liberty
to
move
the
an
application in such cases for cancellation of
bail.
(Dictated to the Stenographer directly on computer, computerized
printout taken thereof is corrected, signed and then pronounced by me
in Open Court on this the 01 st day of February, 2022).

(A. EARANNA)
LXII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru City