KABC010160512022
IN THE COURT OF THE LII ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS
JUDGE, BANGALORE (CCH-53)
Dated this the 23rd day of June, 2022
PRESENT
Sri.B.G.Pramoda, B.A.L., LL.B.,
LII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bangalore.
Crl.Misc.No.5977/2022
Petitioners:
1. Sri.Karthik S.R.
S/o M.Rajanna,
Aged about 30 years,
R/at No.26, 8th Main, J.P.Nagar
1st Phase, Sarakki Gate,
Kanakapura Main Road,
Bengaluru-560078.
2. Sri.Mallappa M.
S/o Late Mallu,
Aged about 41 years,
R/at No.39, 3rd Cross, 1st Main,
Nethaji Layout, Vijayanagar 2nd Stage,
Bengaluru – 560040.
(Accused No.9 and 10)
(By Sri.H.C.Nataraj, Advocate)
-V/S-
Crl.Misc.No.5977/2022
2
Respondent :
State of Karnataka by
Konanakunte police station,
Bengaluru.
(Represented
Prosecutor)
by
learned
Public
ORDER
This petition is filed by the petitioners u/Sec.438 of Cr.P.C.,
praying to grant anticipatory bail to them in the event of their arrest
by respondent police in Crime No.168/2022 of Konanakunte police
station for the offences punishable u/Sec.120B, 420, 417 r/w
Sec.34 of IPC, pending on the file of 2nd ACMM, Bengaluru.
2.

It is stated in the petition that the respondent police
have registered the case in Crime No.168/2022 against the
petitioners
and
others
alleging
the
offences
punishable
u/Sec.120B, 420, 417 r/w Sec.34 of IPC, on the basis of
information given by one Ramu A.C. It is further stated in the
petition that the petitioners are innocents and they have not
committed any offences as alleged against them. The petitioners
have been falsely implicated in the aforesaid crime number. The
petitioners are permanent residents of Bengaluru. The petitioners
are the sole bread earners of their family. The respondent police
are making hectic efforts to arrest the petitioners in this case.
There is a serious apprehension of their arrest by the respondent
police.

The petitioners are ready to abide by any terms and
3
Crl.Misc.No.5977/2022
conditions that may be imposed by the court for their enlargement
on bail. The petitioners are ready and willing to offer surety to the
satisfaction of the court. Hence, the petitioners have prayed to
allow the petition.
3. The learned Public Prosecutor has filed the objection to
the petition along with I.O. report by opposing the grant of
anticipatory bail to the petitioners on the ground that the offences
alleged to have been committed by the petitioners are grave in
nature and against to society. It is further stated in the objection
that the petitioners and other accused have entered into criminal
conspiracy with each other and they have cheated the informant
in the manner as alleged in the information. It is further stated in
the objection that the case is still investigation stage. It is further
stated in the objection that if the petitioners are enlarged on bail,
they may abscond and they may not appear before Investigating
Officer and may hamper the investigation of the case. The
petitioners may threaten the informant and other prosecution
witnesses and they may try to destroy the evidence. The
petitioners may commit similar offences in future. It is further
stated in the objections that if the petitioners are enlarged on bail,
it would be difficult to secure their presence for investigation.
Hence, the Learned Public Prosecutor has prayed to reject the
petition filed by the petitioners.

Crl.Misc.No.5977/2022
4
4. Heard the arguments of Learned Public Prosecutor and
Learned counsel for the petitioners. Perused the petition,
objection and other materials on record.
5. Having done so, the following points will arise for my
consideration:
(1) Whether the petitioners have made out
grounds for granting anticipatory bail
u/s.438 of Cr.P.C.,?
(2) What order?
6.

My findings on the above points are as under:
(1) Point No.1
..

In the Affirmative
(2) Point No.2
..

As per final order
for the following:
REASONS
7. Point No.1:- The petitioners have filed the present
petition praying for grant of anticipatory bail in Crime No.168/2022
which is registered against them alleging the offences punishable
u/Sec.120B, 420, 417 r/w Sec.34 of IPC, on the basis of
information given by one Ramu A.C. The petitioners have
produced the certified copy of the information and FIR. The
petitioners are shown as accused No.9 and 10 in the FIR.
8. It is alleged in the FIR and information that the accused
No.11 to 14 have approached the informant in the year 2019 and
5
Crl.Misc.No.5977/2022
told him that accused No.1 to 7 and 15 are willing to sell their sites
granted by BDA to them and made the informant to purchase
those sites. Accordingly the informant has agreed to purchase
those sites and entered into an agreement and he has paid
Rs.54,50,000/- amount as advance sale consideration amount on
different dates to accused No.1 to 7 and 15. It is further alleged in
the FIR that the accused have told the informant on 28.09.2022
that four sites were allotted to the accused by BDA and made him
to pay Rs.75,64,600/- towards issuance of allotment letter and
other fee. It is further alleged that the accused have not sold the
sites to the informant and they have not returned the money to the
informant and thereby they have cheated the informant.
9.

The offences alleged against the petitioners are non-
bailable in nature. Since FIR is registered against the petitioners
by alleging the commission of non-bailable offence, the petitioners
have filed the present petition under the apprehension of their
arrest by the respondent police. They have alleged in the petition
that the respondent police are making hectic efforts to arrest them
and they have got reasonable apprehension of their arrest by the
respondent police. Since non-bailable offence is alleged against
the petitioners, there is possibility of arrest of the petitioners by the
respondent police during the course of investigation of the case.

6
10.

Crl.Misc.No.5977/2022
The petitioners have contended that they are
innocents and they are not committed the alleged offence and
they have been falsely implicated in this case. The main
allegations is made only against accused No.1 to 7 and 15 stating
that they have received the amount from the informant.

The
present petitioners have not received any amount from the
informant. Only allegations made against the present petitioners
is that they have also involved in criminal conspiracy with other
accused in commission of the alleged offences. Whether the
petitioners have committed the alleged offences or not and
whether the petitioners have cheated the informant in the manner
as alleged in the information or not has to be adjudicated only
after full-fledged trial. The investigation of the allegations made in
the information is mainly depending upon the documentary
evidence. The custodial interrogation of the petitioners is not
necessary for investigation of the case.
11.

The offences alleged against the petitioners are not
exclusively punishable with death or imprisonment for life. The
alleged offences are triable by Learned Magistrate. The
petitioners are ready to co-operate with the investigation of the
case.

If the petitioners are arrested by the respondent police
without holding proper enquiry and without following the
guidelines of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Arnesh Kumar’s
7
Crl.Misc.No.5977/2022
case, the petitioners will be put to unnecessary hardship and
humiliation.
12.

The petitioners are ready and willing to abide by any
terms and conditions imposed by the court for their enlargement
on bail. The petitioners are also ready to furnish surety to the
satisfaction of the court. The petitioners are permanent residents
of Bengaluru. As such, there is no chances of petitioners
absconding or fleeing from justice. The apprehension of learned
Public Prosecutor may be make good by imposing suitable terms
and conditions. The presence of the petitioners during the course
of investigation of the case can be secured by imposing suitable
conditions. Hence, by considering the reasonable apprehension
of arrest of the petitioners by respondent police and by
considering the fact that the petitioners are ready to abide by any
terms and conditions that may be imposed by the court for their
enlargement and by considering the fact that the petitioners are
ready to co-operate with the investigation of the case and by
considering the fact that petitioners are ready and willing to offer
surety to the satisfaction of the court, I am of the opinion that
anticipatory bail as prayed for by the petitioners may be granted
by imposing suitable terms and conditions. Hence, the petition
filed by the petitioners is deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, I
answer the above point in the Affirmative.

8
Crl.Misc.No.5977/2022
13. Point No.2:- In view of my findings on point No.1, I
proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
The petition filed by the petitioners u/Sec.438 of
Cr.P.C., is hereby allowed.
The respondent police shall release the petitioners on
bail in the event of their arrest in Crime No.168/2022
registered against the petitioners alleging the offences
punishable u/Sec.120B, 420, 417 r/w Sec.34 of IPC,
pending on the file of learned 2nd ACMM court, Bangalore,
on petitioners executing personal bond for a sum of
Rs.1,00,000/- each with one surety for likesum each to the
satisfaction of the Learned Magistrate on the following
further conditions:CONDITIONS
(1) The petitioners shall appear before the Investigating Officer
within the period of three weeks from the date of this order and
they shall furnish all the necessary information and documents
as required by Investigating Officer for investigation of the
case.
(2) The petitioners shall appear before the Investigating Officer as
and when called for during the course of investigation of the
case and they shall co-operate with the investigation of the
case.
(3) The petitioners shall not directly or indirectly make any
inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with
the facts of the case so as to dissuade them from disclosing
such facts to the court or any police officer or any hamper with
the evidence.

9
Crl.Misc.No.5977/2022
(4) The petitioners shall not commit offences of similar in nature or
any other offences in future.
(5) The petitioners shall furnish their correct address proof before
the trial court.
(6) The petitioners shall not leave India without previous
permission of the court.
(7) The petitioners shall not try to destroy the evidence.
(8) Violation of any of the aforesaid conditions would entitle for
cancellation of bail of the petitioners.
(Dictated to the Stenographer directly on computer, corrected and then
pronounced by me in the open court on this the 23 rd day of June, 2022).

(B.G.Pramoda)
LII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bangalore.

1
0
Crl.Misc.No.5977/2022