1
Crl.Misc.No.3170/2024
KABC010089502024
Presented on
Registered on
Decided on
Duration
: 30-03-2024
: 01.04-2024
: 08-04-2024
: 0 years, 1 month,
7 days
IN THE COURT OF THE LXIV ADDL.CITY CIVIL &
SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH-65) AT BENGALURU)
Dated this 10th day of April 2024
-: P R E S E N T :Smt. Kalpana M.S.,
B.Sc., LL.M.,PGD-CLCF.,
LXIV ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE,
CCH-65, BENGALURU CITY.
Crl.Misc.No.3170/2024
PETITIONER
:
Smt.Leena Kumari.P,
W/o.Suku,
Aged about 47 years,
R/at. 15/39, Siddha Vihar,
Behind Christian College,
Horamavu Agara,
Bengaluru.
(Accused No.1)
2
Crl.Misc.No.3170/2024
(By Sri. MunirajaS.M., Advocate)
/Vs/
RESPONDENT
:
State of Karnataka,
Hennur, Police Station,
Bengaluru.
(Rep.
By
Prosecutor)
Learned
Public
ORDERS ON ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION
U/S.438 OF CR.P.C.
Petitioner/accused No.1 has filed this petition
U/s.438 of Code Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred
as Cr.P.C.,) seeking anticipatory bail in Cr.No.303/2023
of Hennur, police station, Bengaluru for the offences
punishable U/s.406, 408, 420 r/w. 34 of Indian Penal
Code (hereinafter referred as I.P.C.) pending on the file
of
IV-Addl.

Bengaluru.

Chief
Metropolitan
Magistrate
Court,
3
Crl.Misc.No.3170/2024
2.

Learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the
State has filed objections statement along with report of
the Investigating Officer opposing the bail petition.
3.
the
For the purpose of brevity, the facts stated in
petition
and
objections
will
be
mentioned
at
appropriate stage of the orders.
4.

Heard arguments. Perused the materials on
record.
5.

The points do arise for my consideration are;
1. Whether petitioner/accused No.1
is entitled for grant of anticipatory
bail U/s.438 of Code of Criminal
Procedure?
2. What Order?

6.

For
the
reasons
stated
hereinafter,
findings on the above points are as follows;
Point No.1: In the Affirmative
Point No.2: As per final order
for the following:-
my
4
Crl.Misc.No.3170/2024
REASONS
7.

POINT No.1:- Along with petition, petitioner
has produced certified copies of complaint, F.I.R. order
sheet in Cr.No.303/2023, Notice under Section 41(A) of
Cr.P.C. Perused the same.
8.

The facts set out in the complaint, F.I.R.,
in
brief, is as under;
The first informant Sri.Dr.Rajeev Kishan, alleged in
the complaint that, since 2017 he is running New
Millenium School at Horamavu Agrahara, and had
appointed the petitioner as Manager in the said school.
The amount collected from the fees and other financial
transactions is required to be deposited to the School
account maintained in South Indian Bank, Indiranagar
Branch.

When the documents pertaining to the bank
transactions were verified it is noticed that, during the
5
Crl.Misc.No.3170/2024
academic
year
of
2020
to
2022-23,
amount
of
Rs.2,00,00,000/- has not been deposited to the Bank,
instead with an ulterior motive to cheat the complainant,
the petitioner colluding with Office boy Pramod and
Deepa Rajesh, deposited the said amount to the bank
account of Pramod and utilised the said amount for their
personal use.

In pursuance of the complaint, the
complainant police have registered Cr.No.303/2023 for
the offence punishable U/s.406, 408, 420 r/w. 34 of IPC
and proceeded with investigation.
9.

Learned counsel for the petitioner/accused
No.1 vehemently argued that, she is innocent of the
alleged offences. She has not committed said offences.
She has been falsely implicated in this case. The incident
alleged to have been taken place on 01.01.2020 and the
complainant has filed complaint on 22.08.2023, there is
inordinate delay in lodging the complaint.

If the
6
Crl.Misc.No.3170/2024
petitioner is arrested she and her family would be put to
severe
hardship.

The
petitioner
has
never
mis
appropriated the trust funds. The alleged offences are
neither punishable with death penalty nor imprisonment
for life. The respondent police have predetermination
with regard to the nature of offence without any proper
preliminary investigations.

There are no reasonable
grounds to believe that the petitioner has committed any
offence. The petitioner is no more needed to police for
any interrogation purpose.

She hails from respectable
family and having deep roots in the society. The
petitioner is ready and willing to abide by the terms and
conditions that may be imposed by this court. There is
serious apprehension of arrest.

The respondent police
are making hectic efforts to arrest the petitioner. The
learned counsel submits that, the petitioner has made
out prima facie case for grant of pre-arrest bail.

7
Crl.Misc.No.3170/2024
10.

The Learned Public Prosecutor vehemently
argued that, the petitioner has committed serious
offences. In the event of grant of bail, there is chances of
tampering and terrorizing the witnesses and they may
remain absconding and not available for the trial. He
may indulge in similar offences. Hence, prays for
rejection of the bail petition.
10.

At the out set, the alleged offences are neither
punishable with death penalty nor imprisonment for life.
Said offences are triable by Magistrate. The commission
of offences by the petitioner is required to be established
during trial. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the
decision of State of Rajasthan, Jaipur V/s. Balachandh
@ Baliay (AIR 1977 SC 2447) and in catena of decisions
pleased to laid down the legal doctrine that “Bail is a rule
and jail is an exception”. This legal doctrine is laid down
for safeguarding fundamental right under Article 21 of
8
Crl.Misc.No.3170/2024
Constitution of India, granting the right to life and
liberty.
11.

The offence alleged against the petitioner is
punishable under 420 of I.P.C. and other allied offences.
It is settled law that, in a case of this nature, custodial
interrogation is not warranted. In the decision reported
in AIR 2023 Supreme Court 1570: AIR Online 2023
SC 198 in a case of Mahdoom Bava V/s.Central
Bureau of Investigation, the Hon’ble Court pleased to
observe that;
Criminal P.C. (2 of 1974) S.438 –
Anticipatory bail – Entitlement – Offences
U/Ss. 420, 467, 468, 471 R/w.Sec.120B of
I.P.C. and S.13(3) R/w.Sec. 13(1)(d) of the
Prevention of Corruption Act – When case
was primarily
based
on documentary
evidence, arrest of accused persons was not
warranted- Eleven cases were registered
against prime accused but those cases were
not relevant for adjudicating the present
matter. Accused persons apprehended that
9
Crl.Misc.No.3170/2024
they may be remanded to custody by trial
court- Anticipatory bail granted.
The ratio laid down in the cited decision is squarely
applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case.
12. It is pertinent to note that, the petitioner is woman
and proviso to 437 of Code is applicable to her. In this
context, it is profitable to refer the decision of the Coordinate Bench of Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in
Kavitha V. State of Karnataka – Crl.P.No.2509/2019
decided on 05.08.2019, the Hon’ble
Court pleased to
observe as under;
“In the above facts and circumstances of the
case, proviso to Section 432 of Cr.P.C. would
come to the help of the petitioner herein. Even
at this stage, if the court comes to the
conclusion that, a strong prima facie case is
made out against a woman, still the court can
exercise its discretion and it may enlarge a lady
on bail with conditions. Though the petition is
filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., the proviso
to section 437 can be equally made use of. The
said proviso says that, even if there appears
10
Crl.Misc.No.3170/2024
reasonable grounds for believing that the
accused is guilty of the offences punishable
with death or imprisonment for life, provided
the court may direct that the person referred to
in Clause (i) or Clause (ii), be released on bail, if
such person is under the age of sixteen years or
is a woman or is sick or infirm. Therefore, in the
above circumstances, in my opinion, as the
petitioner/ accused has been
in jail since
05.01.2019 and the charge sheet has already
been filed, she is entitled to be enlarged on bail
during the trial, with certain conditions……….”
13.

In the decision reported in Rathnawwa and
another V/s.State of Karnataka Crl.P. No.100503/2017
decided on 13.3.2014, the Hon’ble court pleased to
observe that;
“ The proviso in section 437 of Code of
Criminal Procedure1973 (hereinafter referred
to as “Cr.P.C.”for brevity) empowers the court
that even if the offences which are punishable
with death or imprisonment for life or
imprisonment for life or imprisonment for
seven years or more, the court may direct
that such a person referred to in clause – (I)
or (ii) of Section 437 of Cr.P.C. be released on
11
Crl.Misc.No.3170/2024
bail, it is satisfied that if such person is
under the age of 16 years or is a woman or is
sick or infirm. Therefore, it is a special
proviso appended to Section 437 of Cr.P.C.
particularly, considering the woman folk, sick
and infirm persons and the persons, who are
less than 16 years.”
In view of the principles laid down in the above
decision, woman and sick, aged persons are entitled to
be released on bail, even in cases of offences punishable
under death or imprisonment for life, as those categories
of offenders falls within the purview of proviso to Section
437 of Cr.P.C.
14.

It is forth coming that, there is delay in filing
complaint. The alleged offence are based on documents.
As rightly contended that, there is no report of criminal
antecedents.
The
Custodial interrogation is not warranted.

petitioner
has
permanent
place
of
abode
in
Bengaluru. There is remote chances of flee from justice.
The apprehension of the prosecution could be met by
12
Crl.Misc.No.3170/2024
imposing stringent conditions to secure the accused
persons
during
trial.

Under
these
facts
and
circumstances and having regard to the nature of
offences alleged and punishment prescribed and in view
of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of
India in the case of Satender Kumar Antil V/s.Central
Bureau of Investigation reported in 2022 Live Law
(SC) 577 , I am of the opinion that, to struck the balance
between individual liberty and humiliation due to
unjustifiable detention against free and fair trial as well
as welfare of society, it is proper to enlarge the petitioner
on bail by imposing appropriate terms and conditions.
Accordingly, point No.1 is answered in the Affirmative.
15.

POINT
NO.2:
In
view
of
the
aforesaid
discussion, this court proceed to pass the following :
13
Crl.Misc.No.3170/2024
ORDER
Anticipatory bail petition U/s.438 of
Cr.P.C., filed by the petitioner/accused No.1
is allowed.
Respondent
police
are
directed
to
release the petitioner/accused No.1 on bail
in the event of her arrest Hennur, police
station,
Bengaluru
for
the
offences
punishable U/s.406, 408, 420 r/w. 34 of
I.P.C. pending on the file of
IV-Addl. Chief
Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Bengaluru by
taking personal bonds for ?.50,000/- (fifty
thousand) with two sureties for like sum on
following conditions;
1. Petitioner/accused No.1 shall appear
before Investigating Officer and cooperate with investigation within 15
days from the date of this order and
make herself available for investigation
as
and
when
Investigating Officer.

called
by
the
14
Crl.Misc.No.3170/2024
2.

She
shall
regarding
furnish
his
address
documents
proof,
address proof of his sureties
the
at the
time of furnishing sureties.
3. She shall mark his attendance at
respondent police station on 1 st and 3rd
Sunday of every month between 10.00
a.m. and 2.00 p.m., till conclusion of
investigation or for a period of 3
months, whichever is earlier.
4. She shall not
make
any
directly or indirectly
inducement,
threat
or
promise to any person acquainted with
the facts of the case so as to dissuade
her from disclosing such facts either to
the Investigation Officer or to the trial
court.
5. She shall not leave the jurisdiction of
India without prior permission of the
trial court.

15
Crl.Misc.No.3170/2024
6. She shall not involve in any criminal
activities.
7. In
the
event
any
change
in
the
residential address, petitioner and his
sureties shall intimate the same to the
trial court immediately without fail.
Violation of any of these conditions
would entitle cancellation of bail.
(Dictated to the Judgment Writer directly on computer, typed by
her, then corrected, signed and pronounced by me in open court on
this 10th day of April, 2024).

(KALPANA M.S.)
LXIV ADDL.CITY CIVIL &
SESSIONS JUDGE, CCH-65,
BENGALURU CITY.

16
Crl.Misc.No.3170/2024
Order pronounced in the open
Court, vide separate Order:ORDER
Anticipatory bail petition U/s.438 of
Cr.P.C., filed by the petitioner/accused No.1 is
allowed.
Respondent
police
are
directed
to
release the petitioner/accused No.1 on bail
in the event of her arrest Hennur, police
station,
Bengaluru
for
the
offences
punishable U/s.406, 408, 420 r/w. 34 of
I.P.C. pending on the file of
IV-Addl. Chief
Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Bengaluru by
taking personal bonds for ?.50,000/- (fifty
thousand) with two sureties for like sum on
following conditions;
1. Petitioner/accused No.1 shall appear
before Investigating Officer and cooperate with investigation within 15
days from the date of this order and
make herself available for investigation
17
Crl.Misc.No.3170/2024
as
and
when
called
by
the
Investigating Officer.
2.

She
shall
regarding
furnish
his
address
documents
proof,
address proof of his sureties
the
at the
time of furnishing sureties.
3. She shall mark his attendance at
respondent police station on 1 st and 3rd
Sunday of every month between 10.00
a.m. and 2.00 p.m., till conclusion of
investigation or for a period of 3
months, whichever is earlier.
4. She shall not
make
any
directly or indirectly
inducement,
threat
or
promise to any person acquainted with
the facts of the case so as to dissuade
her from disclosing such facts either to
the Investigation Officer or to the trial
court.

18
Crl.Misc.No.3170/2024
5. She shall not leave the jurisdiction of
India without prior permission of the
trial court.
6. She shall not involve in any criminal
activities.
7. In
the
event
any
change
in
the
residential address, petitioner and his
sureties shall intimate the same to the
trial court immediately without fail.
Violation of any of these conditions would
entitle cancellation of bail.
LXIV ADDL.CITY CIVIL &
SESSIONS JUDGE, CCH-65,
BENGALURU CITY.