Crl. Misc. No.587/2023
KABC010018252023
IN THE COURT OF THE LXI ADDL. CITY CIVIL,
SESSIONS JUDGE: BENGALURU CITY
Dated this the 27 th day of January, 2023
-: PRESENT :Sri R.Ravi, B.Sc., LL.B.,
LXI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bangalore, (CCH-62)
CRL. MISC. No.587/2023
Petitioner/s
:
1. Smt.Lakshmi Devi
W/o.Srinivas
Aged about 60 years
2. Manikanta
S/o.Srinivas
Aged about 30 years
Both Petitioner No.1 & 2 are
R/a.No.17/1, 6th Cross
Lakshmanappa Garden BSK 3rd
Stage
Banashankari 3rd Stage
Bengaluru-560 085.
3. Gajendra
S/o.Venkataswamy
Aged about 51 years
R/a.Vadrahalli
Crl. Misc. No.587/2023
Gannerahalli
Kolar-563 116.
(By Sri.J.D.Sujnana Murthy, Adv.)
V/s
Respondent
:
1.

The State by
Ramamurthy Nagar Police Station
Bengaluru.
(Rep. by Public Prosecutor,
Bengaluru.)

ORDERS ON ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION
ONE FILED BY THE PETITIONERS UNDER SECTION 438
OF Cr.P.C.
The case of the petitioners is that they are innocent of
the alleged offences and they have not committed any
offences as alleged and they have been falsely implicated in
the instant case & there is no overt act attributed against the
petitioners and they are law abiding citizens and they hails
from respectable family and have no bad antecedents and as
such there is no chance of them fleeing away from justice and
the alleged offences are not punishable with death or
imprisonment for life and they are ready and willing to abide
by the terms and conditions that may be imposed by the
Court and they are
also ready to offer surety
to the
satisfaction of the court for their release on bail and since the
respondent police
have registered a false case in Cr.

Crl. Misc. No.587/2023
No.22/2023 for the offences punishable under Section 406,
420, 120B R/w. Section 34 of IPC and are trying to arrest
them then they are constrained to file this petition for
granting of anticipatory bail.

2. On the other hand the learned Public Prosecutor has
filed his objections
along with the report of the I.O. &
opposed the above application that the grounds urged for
seeking anticipatory bail are not satisfactory & the matter is
still under investigation and now at this stage if the
petitioners are granted anticipatory bail then they may
abscond & tamper the prosecution witnesses & accordingly
prayed for rejection of the bail petition.

3. I have heard the arguments of both sides & the points
that would arise for my consideration are as hereunder;
1) Whether the petitioners have made
out a prima-facie case for grant of
anticipatory bail as prayed in the bail
petition?
2) To what Order?
4. My findings on the above points are as follows:Point No.1 – In Affirmative with conditions;
Point No.2 – As per final Order, for the following;
Crl. Misc. No.587/2023
R E A SON S
5. Point No.1:- On perusal of the FIR & complaint it is
alleged that during the year 2019 petitioner No.3 had brought
petitioner No.1 and 2 to the complainant Real Estate Office
stating that they are the absolute owner of Sy. no.141/b
measuring 30 guntas and are intending to sell the same to
the complainant and complainant visited the property and
purchased the same for a sum of Rs.2 Crores 60 lakhs and
the said amount was paid by way of cheque and DD and got
the said property registered on 17.07.2019 and when the
complainant is in possession of the said property the South
Indian
Watch
Company
Managing
Director
filed
R.P.

No.194/2001 before the DC at Bengaluru and got a stay of
not transferring the said property into the name of the
complainant and after hearing the said case was ordered in
favour of the complainant and one Rajkumar Haralaka filed
W.P. before the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in W.P.
No.4871/2022 seeking to stay the order made by the DC,
Bengaluru and in the Hon’ble High Court the petitioner No.1
filed objections to the stay on 12.12.2022 and on 15.02.2022
the petitioner No.1 along with the South Indian Watch
Company had entered into a Confirmation Deed and got the
GPA cancelled given to the complainant and then later on
12.01.2023 the petitioner No.1 filed compromise petition and
confirmation deed was filed for which the Hon’ble High Court
posted the same on 19.01.2023 and the South Indian
Crl. Misc. No.587/2023
Company filed WP relating to the property against the
petitioner No.1 and after the objections was filed the South
Indian Watch Company had collided with petitioner No.1 and
had come into a settlement and had cancelled the GPA given
on behalf of the complainant and complainant purchased the
property and when a case is still pending, cancelling the GPA
& entering into a sale agreement is a conspiracy and
petitioners No.1 to 3 & South Indian Watch Company, M.D.,
have cheated the complainant & there by committed the
alleged offences punishable under section
406, 420, 120B
R/w. Section 34 of IPC.

6. Now, it is the contention of the petitioners that they
are innocent of the alleged offences and they have not
committed nor involved in the alleged commission of offences
& they are ready to abide by the terms and conditions that
may be imposed by this Court.

7. On the other hand though the prosecution has
opposed the case of the petitioners that if the petitioner is
granted anticipatory bail then they may abscond and tamper
the prosecution witnesses is concerned, the same do no hold
any water as the FIR & complaint and Aadhar cards one
produced by the petitioners shows that they are permanent
residents of Bengaluru
and their presence can be easily
Crl. Misc. No.587/2023
secured before the court & the I.O.

8. And more over since the alleged offences under
Section 406, 420, 120B R/w. Section 34 of IPC are not at all
punishable with death or life imprisonment and and since the
materials on record discloses that the dispute between the
parties appears to be a civil in nature & since in the ruling of
2020(1) KCCR SN 29 (SC)
it has been clearly held that –
‘When the matter is civil in nature, the continuation of
criminal proceedings will be abuse process of law ‘
and
since the alleged offences against the petitioners has to be
decided through a thorough trial and since the apprehension
of the prosecution could be met by imposing stringent
conditions then looking into the nature and gravity of the
alleged offences, I am of the considered opinion that the
petitioners have made out a prima-facie case for grant of bail
subject to conditions and accordingly, I have answered the
above point No.1 in affirmative.

9.

Point No.2 :- In view of the discussion made on
point No.1 and further holding it in the affirmative, I proceed
to pass the following:O R DE R
The anticipatory bail petition one filed by
the petitioners u/s 438 of Cr.P.C., is hereby
Crl. Misc. No.587/2023
allowed subject to following conditions;
1. That in the event of arrest of the
petitioners in Cr. No.22/2023 of respondent
Police they shall be released on bail on
executing a personal bond for Rs.2,00,000/each with two sureties for like sum amount.
2. That the petitioners shall mark their
attendance before the respondent Police Station
once in a month on 2nd Saturday of every month
till filing of charge sheet.

3. That the petitioners shall appear before
the I.O. within 30 days from the date of this
order and shall co-operate in the matter of
investigation or whenever called by the I.O.
4. That the petitioners shall not hold any
threat to the complainant and shall not tamper
with any of the prosecution witnesses directly or
indirectly.
5. That the petitioners shall not leave the
jurisdiction of the trial court without its prior
permission.
6. That the petitioners shall furnish their
residential address proof and that of their
sureties.

Crl. Misc. No.587/2023
7. That the petitioners shall not indulge in
similar type of offences in future.
8. That the petitioners shall appear before
the trial court regularly without fail on receipt of
the summons.
9. That if the petitioners fails to obey any of
the above said conditions, then this bail order
automatically stands cancelled.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and typed by her, corrected, signed and then pronounced
by me in the open Court on this the 27th day of January, 2023).

(R.RAVI)
LXI ACC & SJ, B’luru
R
RAVI
Digitally signed
by R RAVI
Date: 2023.01.28
12:15:22 +0530
Crl. Misc. No.587/2023
27.01.2023
P-JDS
R-PP
Order pronounced in open Court (vide separate
order) with the following operative portion:ORDER
The anticipatory bail petition
one filed by the petitioners u/s 438
of Cr.P.C., is hereby allowed subject
to following conditions;
Crl. Misc. No.587/2023
1. That in the event of arrest of
the petitioners in Cr. No.22/2023 of
respondent
Police
they
shall
be
released on bail on executing a
personal
bond
for
Rs.2,00,000/-
each with two sureties for like sum
amount.
2. That the petitioners shall
mark their attendance before the
respondent Police Station once in a
month
on
2nd
Saturday
of
every
month till filing of charge sheet.

3. That the petitioners shall
appear before the I.O. within 30 days
from the date of this order and shall
co-operate
in
the
matter
of
investigation or whenever called by
the I.O.
4. That the petitioners shall not
hold any threat to the complainant
and shall not tamper with any of the
prosecution
witnesses
directly
or
indirectly.
5. That the petitioners shall not
leave the jurisdiction of the trial court
Crl. Misc. No.587/2023
without its prior permission.
6. That the petitioners shall
furnish their residential address proof
and that of their sureties.
7. That the petitioners shall not
indulge in similar type of offences in
future.
8. That the petitioners shall
appear before the trial court regularly
without
fail
on
receipt
of
the
summons.
9. That if the petitioners fails to
obey any of the above said conditions,
then this bail order automatically
stands cancelled.

(R.RAVI)
LXI ACC & SJ, B’luru
Crl. Misc. No.587/2023
Crl. Misc. No.587/2023