Crl.Misc.2879/2024 KABC010080962024 IN THE COURT OF THE LXVIII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY (CCH-69) Dated this the 05th day of April 2024 :PRESENT: Sri.Sabappa,B.Com.,LLB(Spl.) LXVIIIAddl.CityCivilandSessionsJudge, Bengaluru City. CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.2879/2024 PETITIONER : M. Srinivas Rao, S/o Pichaiah, Aged about 53 years, Managing Director, M/s. Windsor Edifices Private Limited, No.722, 37th Cross, 9th Main, 5th Block, Jayanagar, Bengaluru – 560 041. (By Sri. Prathap Yadav.R, Adv.,) V/s RESPONDENT : State by; Beguru Police Station, Bengaluru. (RepresentedbyPublicProsecutor) Crl.Misc.2879/2024 ORDER ON BAIL PETITION U/SEC.438 OF CR.P.C. This petition is filed by the petitioner under Sec.438 of Cr.P.C., seeking anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest in connection with Cr.No.81/2024 registered by Begur Police, Bangalore, for the offences punishable under Sec.420 of I.P.C.

2. The brief facts of the case of the petitioner' is that, the

respondent police have registered case against the petitioner in Cr.No.81/2024 for the offence punishable under Sec.420 of I.P.C on the basis of the PCR No.3572/2024 lodged by one Prajwal Shetty. It is alleged in the private complaint that, complainant is doing real estate business. About 1½ years back the petitioner was got introduced to the complainant and on 01.08.2022 the petitioner had told the complainant that he would pay 2% commission if he get his flats sold and in this regard an agreement came to be executed and accordingly, the complainant had got sold the Flat No.B2-1311 of Windor Troyika Apartment situated within the jurisdiction of respondent police station in favour of one Dinesh Ban Chand for a sum of Rs.1,09,93,600/- and as per the contract, the petitioner had to pay Rs.1,99,402/- to the complainant towards commission. When complainant asked for the said amount, the petitioner went on postponing the same on one pretext or the other and he was not receiving the phone calls of the complainant and had cheated the complainant. Hence, complainant lodged the complaint. It is Crl.Misc.2879/2024 submitted by the petitioner that, the respondent police are making hectic efforts to arrest him. Therefore, the petitioner apprehending his arrest by the respondent police has filed this anticipatory bail application.

3. The grounds urged by the petitioner is as under.

The petitioner submitted that, he is innocent of the alleged offence. He is not all concerned with any complicities of the offence attributed against him. He has been falsely involved in this case. The entire allegation made in the complaint are false, baseless and concocted. The petitioner had paid the amount payable to the complainant. But the complainant had demanded more amount as agreed by him and when the same was denied by the petitioner, the complainant has come up with this false story. The alleged incident said to have taken place from 01.08.2022 to 13.03.2024. But the complaint is lodged on 15.03.2024, which clearly goes to show that the complainant in order to extract money from the petitioner has created this false story. The matter involved in the above case is purely civil in nature. There is no overt-act against the petitioner. The alleged offence is not punishable with death or imprisonment for life. The sole intention of the complainant is to detain the petitioner in J.C in order to gain money illegally from the petitioner. He is a permanent resident of address mentioned in the cause title. He is ready to abide by all the conditions imposed by this Court. He is ready and willing to furnish surety to ensure his regular appearance. Hence, sought for grant of anticipatory bail. Crl.Misc.2879/2024

4. The learned Public Prosecutor has filed objections to

the bail petition along with the report of the P.S.I, Begur Police Station. In the objections the learned Public Prosecutor has narrated the facts as stated in the F.I.R. The investigation of the case is under progress. The petitioner is involved in the commission of the alleged offence. The respondent police issued notice to the petitioner U/Sec.41A of Cr.P.C to appear before them for enquiry. Inspite of it, the petitioner is not ready to appear before the I.O for enquiry. The petitioner is required for interrogation. If the petitioner is granted bail, there is every chance that he may abscond and not co-operate with the investigation and may tamper the evidence. Therefore, the P.P has sought for rejection of bail.

5. Heard both sides. Perused the materials on record.

6. The points that arise for my consideration are:

1. Whether the petitioner has made out sufficient grounds for grant of anticipatory bail as sought for?

2. What order?

7. My findings to the above points are as follows:

Point No.1 : In the Affirmative, Point No.2 : As per final order, for the following; Crl.Misc.2879/2024 R E A S O N S

8. POINT No.1: I have gone through the bail petition and

objection statement. It is noticed that the respondent police registered case in Cr.No.81/2024 for the offence punishable U/Sec.420 of IPC. The petitioner contended that, he is innocent of the alleged offence. It is not involved in the commission of the alleged offence. There is delay in lodging the complaint. The alleged offence is not punishable with death or imprisonment for life. He is permanent resident of Bengaluru. He is ready to abide by any conditions imposed by this Court.

9. The prosecution contended that, the petitioner is involved

in the commission of the offence. The investigation is going on. The petitioners have cheated the complainant. The respondent police issued notice to the petitioner U/Sec.41A of Cr.P.C to appear before them for enquiry. Inspite of it, the petitioner is not ready to appear before the I.O for enquiry. At this stage, if the petitioner is enlarged on bail, he will try to abscond and tamper the prosecution witnesses. Thereby, the petitioner is not entitled for grant of anticipatory bail.

10. On perusal of the entire records, it is noticed that the

alleged incident took place from 01.08.2022 to 13.03.2024. But the complaint is lodged on 15.03.2024. There is inordinate delay in lodging the complaint. There is no explanation by the side of the complainant. Moreover, the alleged offence not punishable with Crl.Misc.2879/2024 death or imprisonment for life. It is triable by the Magistrate Court. At this stage, this Court feels that in order to ascertain the real truth, it requires investigation and trial. At this stage, based on the complaint and FIR, it is not possible to hold that the petitioner has committed the alleged offence. At this juncture, this Court feels that if some stringent conditions are imposed on the petitioner and enlarge him on bail, it will protect the interest of the prosecution. Otherwise the petitioner will be put to humiliation and hardship.

11. At the same time, I would like to refer the citations

reported in 2014(8) SCC 273, in the case of Arnesh Kumar V/s State of Bihar & another, wherein it is held that : “Directions issued herein, held, shall apply to all such cases where offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term which may be less than 7 years or which may extend to 7 years whether with or without fine – Police Officers shall not arrest the accused unnecessarily and Magistrate shall not authorise detention casually and mechanically – Failure to comply with these directions, shall, apart from rendering police officers concerned liable for departmental action, also make them liable to be punished for contempt of court – Authorising detention without recording reasons by Judicial Magistrate concerned shall be liable to departmental Crl.Misc.2879/2024 action by appropriate High Court – Copy of Judgment to be forwarded to Chief Secretaries as also Dgs of Police of all States and UT and Registrar General of all High Courts for ensuring compliance therewith – Police – Arrest – Penal Code,1860 – S.498-A – Constitution of India, Arts.21 and 22(2).” The facts and circumstances discussed in the above respected citation and the facts and circumstance of the present case are one and the same. Thereby, the above respected citation is aptly applicable to the present case on hand.

12. At this juncture, this Court feels that, while considering the

prayer for grant of anticipatory bail, a balance has to be struck between two factors namely, no prejudice should be caused to the free, fair and full investigation and there should be prevention of harassment, humiliation and unjustified detention of the accused. In view of the above discussion, I come to the conclusion that at this stage the petitioner has made out sufficient grounds to enlarge him on bail. Moreover, the prosecution contended that in case petitioner is enlarged on bail, he may abscond, threaten the prosecution witnesses and hamper the evidence. Thereby this court come to conclusion that if some stringent conditions are imposed on the petitioner and granted bail, the apprehension of the prosecution could be safeguarded. At this juncture, on perusal of entire records, Crl.Misc.2879/2024 this Court feels that the petitioner has made out sufficient grounds to enlarge him on bail. Hence I answer above point No.1 in the Affirmative.

13. POINT NO.2: In view of my findings point No.1, I

proceed to pass the following: O R D E R Bail petition filed by the petitioner under Sec. 438 of Cr.P.C is hereby allowed. Petitioner is ordered to be released on anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest in Cr.No.81/2024 of Beguru P.S., on executing his personal bond for Rs.50,000/- with one surety for the like sum on the following conditions.

1. The petitioner shall appear before the I.O

within 30 days from the date of this order and co- operate for investigation.

2. The petitioner shall not tamper with the

Prosecution witnesses either directly or indirectly in any manner.

3. He shall co-operate for investigation by the

concerned police and regularly appear before the concerned court as and when required. Crl.Misc.2879/2024

4. He shall not abscond from the ordinary

residence and he should furnish the address proof to the concerned police.

5. He shall not indulge in any kind of offence.

6. He shall not leave the jurisdiction of the court

without prior permission.

7. He shall mark the attendance in the

respondent P.S between 10.00 a.m to 6.00 p.m once in a month i.e., on 2nd Sunday till filing of the final report. If any of the above conditions violated the IO is at liberty to move for cancellation of bail. (Dictated to the Stenographer, typed by her directly on Computer, revised, corrected and then pronounced by me in the open court on this the 05th day of April, 2024) (Sabappa) LXVIII Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City. Crl.Misc.2879/2024 ORDERS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT,VIDE SEPARATE ORDER Bail petition filed by the petitioner under Sec. 438 of Cr.P.C is hereby allowed. Petitioner is ordered to be released on anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest in Cr.No.81/2024 of Beguru P.S., on executing his personal bond for Rs.50,000/- with one surety for the like sum on the following conditions.

1. The petitioner shall appear before the I.O within 30 days from the date of this order and co-operate for investigation.

2. The petitioner shall not tamper with the Prosecution witnesses either directly or indirectly in any manner.

3. He shall co-operate for investigation by the concerned police and regularly appear before the concerned court as and when required.

4. He shall not abscond from the ordinary residence and he should furnish the address proof to the concerned police.

5. He shall not indulge in any kind of offence. Crl.Misc.2879/2024

6. He shall not leave the jurisdiction of the court without prior permission.

7. He shall mark the attendance in the respondent P.S between 10.00 a.m to 6.00 p.m once in a month i.e., on 2nd Sunday till filing of the final report.

If any of the above conditions violated the IO is at liberty to move for cancellation of bail. LXVIII A.C.C & S.J, Bengaluru City. Crl.Misc.2879/2024