KABC010081292024 IN THE COURT OF THE LIX ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH-60) AT BENGALURU Dated this the 16th day of April, 2024 PRESENT: Sri. K.S. VIJAYA, B.Com, LLM., C/C LIX ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, CCH-60, BENGALURU CITY. Criminal Misc.No.2893/2024 PETITIONERS: 1. Krishnappa, S/o. Thagadegowda, Aged about 64 years, (Accused No.2)
2. Smt. Geetha, W/o. Krishnappa, Aged about 50 years,
Both are R/at. No.56, Kenchenahalli, 1st Cross, Rajarajeshwari Nagar, Bengaluru South, Bengaluru – 560 098. (Accused No.3) (By Sri.Raghu N.R., Adv.) V/S 2 Crl. Misc No.2893/2024 RESPONDENT: The State of Karnataka. Through Rajarajeshwari Nagar P.S. Bengaluru. (Rep. by Public Prosecutor) ORDER ON BAIL PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION 438 of CR.P.C. The learned counsel for the Petitioners has filed Petition U/Sec.438 of Cr.P.C. and prayed to grant Anticipatory Bail to the Petitioners in Crime No.226/2023 of Rajarajeshwari Nagar P.S., Bengaluru City.
2. The brief facts of the Petitioners' case is that the
respondent Police have registered a case in Crime No.226/2023 of Rajarajeshwari Nagar P.S., alleging the commission of offences punishable U/Secs.406, 420, 506 R/w 34 of IPC. The Petitioners are having apprehension of their arrest in the said case and hence they have filed this petition. The said case in Crime No.226/2023 was registered on the information/ complaint given by one Gayathri G Rao W/o Late Ramesh Rao. As per the contents of said complaint/ information the Accused persons by name Sushmitha, 3 Crl. Misc No.2893/2024 Krishnappa and Geetha have instigated her to give Rs.4,50,000/- and Rs.10,00,000/- to invest the same in a business and the said informant had sold her golden articles and paid the said amount to Accused persons. Inspite of completing a year of receiving such amount, it was not repaid. After repeated demand made by the informant, a cheque for Rs.6,00,000/- was given by the Accused No.1. It is also stated in the information that Sushmitha and her parents have defrauded others by receiving amount and also by issuing cheque which does not match with the signature of the Accused Sushmitha. These Petitioners are parents of said Sushmitha. It is claimed by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that these Petitioners are innocents of the alleged offences and they have not committed any offences as alleged by the informant/ complainant Police. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the Petitioners that the Accused No.1 and also one another Accused by name Rahees Ahmmed whose name does not find place in FIR, have been granted with anticipatory bail as per the orders of this court in 4 Crl. Misc No.2893/2024 Crl.Misc.No.11964/2023 and 11995/2023. Hence, prayed to grant anticipatory bail to these Petitioners.
3. The Learned Public Prosecutor has filed his
objection to the said petition contending that there is prima- facie material against these Petitioners to show their involvement in committing the alleged offences. If they are granted with anticipatory bail, they may tamper the prosecution witnesses, they may abscond themselves and also may not attend court regularly. Hence, prayed to dismiss the bail Petition.
4. After going through the contents of the Petition
and contention taken by the Learned Public Prosecutor, the Points that arise for my consideration are:-
1. Whether the Petition is entitled to
be allowed ?
2. What Order ?
5. Heard the learned counsel for the Petitioners and
also the Learned Public Prosecutor. After considering the 5 Crl. Misc No.2893/2024 materials available on record and after hearing the arguments of both the sides, my answer to the above Points are:- Point No.1 : In the Affirmative. Point No.2 : As per the final order.
REASONS
6. Point No.1: After going through the alleged
information given by the informant, the allegation against Sushmitha is that she has not repaid the amount received by her from complainant, which she received for investing the same in a business. Late for repayment of such money, she had issued a cheque for Rs.6,00,000/- dated 10.09.2022 to the informant/ complainant. The same was dishonoured for the reason “Difference in signature”.
7. Considering the nature of allegations, this court
vide order dated 14.12.2023 has granted anticipatory bail in favour of the Accused No.1 i.e., Sushmitha. Apart from that one more person who was not arrayed as Accused was also granted with anticipatory bail by this court. 6 Crl. Misc No.2893/2024
8. The allegation against these Petitioners is that
they being the parents of Accused no.1 Sushmitha have accompanied her while she received money and while making fake promise. It is stated that they have asked the informant/ complainant to repose faith in her. There is no independent allegations against these Petitioners.
9. Considering the said fact and circumstance, and
considering the fact that the Accused No.1 is granted with anticipatory bail, I am of the opinion that these Petitioners/ Accused Nos.2 and 3 of the said case may also be granted with anticipatory bail by imposing similar conditions as imposed against Accused No.1. Hence, I proceed to hold the Point No.1 in the Affirmative.
10. Point No.2: For the foregoing reasons, I proceed
to pass the following:-
ORDER
The Petition filed by the Petitioners/ Accused Nos.1 and 2 U/Sec.438 of Cr.P.C. 7 Crl. Misc No.2893/2024 is hereby allowed on the following conditions;-
1. The Petitioners shall appear before the
jurisdictional Police within 2 weeks from the date of this order.
2. In case of their arrest, they shall be
released on bail on executing personal bond for Rs.50,000/- each along with One surety for likesum.
3. The Petitioners shall not tamper or
threaten the prosecution witnesses. (Dictated to the Stenographer Gr.III transcribed by her, corrected by me and then pronounced in Open Court on 16th day of April, 2024). (K.S. VIJAYA) C/C LIX ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, CCH-60 BENGALURU.