KABC010078942024 IN THE COURT OF THE LXIII ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH-64) AT BENGALURU Dated this the 19th day of April 2024 : PRESENT : Sri.A.V.Patil, B.Com., LL.B., LXIII ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY. CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS NO.2820/2024 PETITIONER : M.B.Basavaraju S/o Late.H.Basappa, Aged about 65 years, Residing at No.31, Shanthi Main Road, Shanthinagar, BBMP Ward No.117, Bengaluru – 560 027. (By Sri.Prasanna Kumar S.Y., Advocate) – Vs – RESPONDENT : State by Ashok Nagara Police Station, Bengaluru. (By Public Prosecutor) 2 Crl.Misc.No.2820/2024 O R D E R The petitioner has filed this petition u/s 438 of Cr.P.C., for release on bail in the event of his arrest in connection with a case registered in Cr.No.519/2023 of respondent Police Station for the offences punishable u/s 424, 427, 506, 504, 403, 420, 503, 405, 415, 425 r/w 34 of IPC.

2. It is stated in the bail application that the

petitioner is innocent and has not committed any offences as alleged in the complaint. The petitioner is the only tenant of the said property and now he is in possession of the said shop under the Rent Agreement executed by the earlier owner. He is coming from noble and respectable family. The offences alleged against the petitioner are not punishable either with death or imprisonment for life and are triable by the Court of Magistrate. He is ready and willing to abide by the terms and conditions imposed while releasing him on bail. In view of registering of FIR, he apprehends his arrest. Hence, prayed to grant anticipatory bail.

3. The learned P.P. has opposed the bail application

by filing the objections statement. According to him, the 3 Crl.Misc.No.2820/2024 respondent/Police have filed ‘B’ Final Report stating that the matter is civil in nature. In view of filing of ‘B’ Report the petitioner is not entitled for anticipatory bail. Therefore, prayed to dismiss the bail petition filed by the petitioner.

4. Heard the arguments from learned Counsel for

petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the materials placed on record.

5. The points that arise for my consideration are:

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled for anticipatory bail as prayed in the application filed under Sec.438 of Cr.P.C.?

2. What order?

6. My answer to the above points are as follows:

Point No.1: In the negative; Point No.2: As per final order for the following; R E A S O N S

7. Point No.1:- Sri.Prithviraj Langthasa, retired IAS

Officer, lodged a private complaint before the learned III ACMM, Bengaluru, against the petitioner. The said private complaint is registered as PCR No.1364/2020 and referred to respondent/Police for investigation u/s 4 Crl.Misc.No.2820/2024 156(3) of Cr.P.C. In the year 2013 he purchased 1/3rd share in the property bearing No.31, PID No.70-48-31, situated at Shanthi Road, Shanthinagar, BBMP New Ward No.117, Old No.70, through Court auction dated 07.08.2013 from the Indian Bank, Asset Recovery Management Branch. The complainant also purchased the remaining 2/3rd undivided share of that property from Smt.Nalini Jayanthi and Sri.V.Ravindranath through a Sale Deed dated 07.08.2013. The petitioner preferred WP No.13505-13506/2012 before the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka, challenging the Sale Certificate executed in favor of the complainant and the said WP came to be dismissed on 29.01.2013. The petitioner was a tenant in a commercial portion of the building. After OS No.4860/2000 was decreed, the complainant purchased the property from Smt.Nalini Jayanthi and Sri.Ravindranath. The accused approached the complainant and sought time to vacate and hand-over the vacant possession of the property which is in his possession. The petitioner approached the complainant and after discussion, they agreed mutually and the complainant agreed to pay Rs.30 5 Crl.Misc.No.2820/2024 lakhs to the accused as compensation for vacating and delivering the vacant possession of the property. Accordingly, the complainant paid an amount of Rs.30 lakhs to the accused, but even after receipt of the amount, the petitioner fails to vacate the premises. The complainant made number of attempts to contact the accused to get the premises vacated, but his efforts went in vein. On the contrary the petitioner threatened the complainant with dire consequences. In this connection, the complainant approached the respondent/Police on 25.01.2020 and the Police have sent back the complainant stating that the dispute is civil in nature. The accused has willfully not vacated the premises even after receipt of Rs.30 lakhs from the complainant and after knowing the fact that the complainant is the resident of Chennai. Hence, the complainant has lodged the complaint against the accused for cheating, criminal breach of trust and for other offences. On the basis of the complaint, the FIR was registered against the petitioner for the aforesaid offences.

8. The learned PP filed the report submitted by the 6 Crl.Misc.No.2820/2024

IO along with objection statement. In report submitted by IO there is clear mention that the respondent/Police have filed ‘B’ Final Report stating that the matter is civil in nature.

9. As per Section 438 of Cr.P.C where any person has

reasons to believe that he may be arrested on accusation of having committed a non-bailable offence, he may apply for anticipatory bail. In the instant case after filing of FIR the respondent police investigated the matter and filed ‘B’ Final Report before the Court on that ground that the matter is civil in nature. The allegations made in the complainant also prima facie indicate that the dispute between the parties is civil in nature. In view of filing of ‘B’ Final Report by the respondent police, the question of apprehension of arrest does not arise and therefore, the question of granting anticipatory bail does not arise at all. As such the bail application filed by the petitioner u/s 438 of Cr.P.C. is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, in the opinion of this Court the petitioner is not entitled for grant of anticipatory bail. For the reasons discussed above, I answer this point in the negative. 7 Crl.Misc.No.2820/2024

10. Point No.2:- In view of my findings on point No.1,

I proceed to pass the following order; O R D E R The anticipatory bail petition filed by petitioner u/s 438 of Cr.P.C. is hereby rejected. (Dictated to the Stenographer Grade-I directly on Computer, typed by her, taken print out, corrected by me and then pronounced in the open Court on this the 19th day of April 2024) (A.V.PATIL) LXIII Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge (CCH-64), Bengaluru City.