KABC010160442022
74
IN THE COURT OF THE LX ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS
JUDGE, BENGALURU (CCH 61)
:Present :
Sri Narashimsa.M.V., B.Com., LL.B.,
LX Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru.
Dated: This the 23rd day of June 2022
: Crl.Misc.No. 5976/2022:
PETITIONERS:-
1. Mangilal @ Raju
S/o Bikaram,
Aged about 38 years
R/at No. 5490,
Imatha Bankers, Near Bus Stand
Gottigere, B.G.Road,
Bengaluru.
2. Harish @ Harlal Devasi
S/o Govardhan Rao
Aged about 33 years
R/at No. 5490,
Imatha Bankers, Near Bus Stand
Gottigere, B.G.Road,
Bengaluru.
3. Raju S/o Balaram
Aged about 38 years
R/at Aishwarya Nilaya,
1st Cross, 2nd Floor,
2
Crl.Misc.No.5976/2022
Kembathahalli road,
Gottigere, Bannerghatta
Bengaluru-560 083.
(By Sri. Anitha, Adv)
V/s
RESPONDENT :
The State of Karnataka
By: Bommanahalli P.S.
(Respondent : Rep. by Public Prosecutor)
ORDER
Accused No.3 to 5 in Bommanahalli PS Crime No. 74/2020
have filed l application for grant of anticipatory bail under Sec. 438 of
Cr.P.C.
2. Brief facts as forthcoming from the first information is that:
First informant is Rajshekhar S/o Nagaiah. He has stated
that on 6.3.2020 himself, his mother and father left to work, his
mother returned back at 6.20 p.m, she found that the house was
burgled, locks were broken open, gold chain, ear rings, silver rings
and cash of Rs 40,000/- was burgled.

Seeking legal action first
information was lodged.
3. Investigation commenced, charge sheet was filed on
9.2.2021 against accused No.1 to 5. Petitioners herein are accused
3
Crl.Misc.No.5976/2022
No.3 to 5. Allegations against them is that they have received stolen
property from accused No.1 and 2.
4. Accused No.3 to 5 have urged the following grounds :
They are innocent, they were enlarged on bail by Hon’ble High
Court of Karnataka in Crl. Petition No. 523/2021 and 516/2021, they
remained
absent before the learned Magistrate, split up charge
sheet has been filed against them, accused No.3 to 5 have not
committed any offence, they will abide by any conditions that may be
imposed by this Court, there is apprehension of they being arrested,
they are sole bread earners of the family, only on the basis of the
alleged voluntary statement of accused No.1 and 2 they are falsely
implicated.
5. Learned PP filed objections to the bail application stating
that accused No.3 to 5 are habitual offenders, purchasing and
dealing in stolen property is their main business, they are involved in
many cases, there are no grounds for enlarging them on bail.
Anticipatory bail application is not maintainable under the facts and
circumstances of the case.

4
Crl.Misc.No.5976/2022
6. Learned Advocate for petitioner filed memo with certified
copy of the orders passed by Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in
Crl. Petition No. 523/2021 and 516/2021.

7. The point that arise for consideration is :
(1) Whether Anticipatory bail application filed by
accused No. 3 to 5 deserves to be allowed ?
8. My finding to the above point is in the Negative, for the
following :REASONS
9. Point No.1: Charge sheet has been filed in Crime No.
74/2020 on 6.3.2020. Along with bail application certified copy of
order sheet in split up CC 18220/2021 against accused No.3 to 5
has been filed. Order sheet discloses that accused No.3 and 4 were
UTP 9766 and 9767/2020.

Perusal of the order passed by the
Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in Crl. Petition No. 523/2021 and
516/2021 discloses that accused No.3 and 4 were granted regular
bail and accused No.5 was granted anticipatory bail.

Perusal of
charge sheet in split up CC No. 18220/2021 discloses that accused
5
Crl.Misc.No.5976/2022
No.3 to 5 have appeared before the learned Magistrate on
28.2.2022.

Proclamation and attachment warrant issued against
them was recalled, case was committed to the Sessions Court.
Committal papers were returned by Sessions Court to the learned
Magistrate as accused No.3 to 5 had not taken regular bail before
the learned Magistrate, thereafter learned Magistrate issued
summons to accused returnable on 13.6.2022.
10. Accused No. 3 to 5 were absent on 13.6.2022, EP was
filed and the matter is posted for appearance of accused No.3 to 5.
These aforesaid facts clearly discloses that accused No.3 to 5 have
been granted bail by the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka, case has
been committed to Sessions Court, since regular bail was not
obtained by accused No.3 to 5 before the learned Magistrate
committal papers were sent back, before the learned Magistrate EP
has been filed for accused No.3 to 5, their presence has been
exempted as well. Thereafter accused No.3 to 5 have not appeared
before the Magistrate, now they are seeking anticipatory bail.
11. It is pertinent to note that non-bailable warrant has not
been issued against them as on 13.6.2022 by the learned
Magistrate. It is pertinent to refer to the case of Venkatachalaiah v.

6
Crl.Misc.No.5976/2022
State of Karnataka, ILR 2003 Karnataka 3985, wherein it is held as
under :
Once the accused appeared before the Trial Court and
thereafter on account of his absence on any later date
warrant is issued by the Court for deliberate absence is
concerned, the remedy of anticipatory bail under Sec.
438 Cr.P.C. is not available to such person. However,
liberty is reserved to the petitioner to file necessary
application before the Trial Court for recalling the
issuance of NBW.
12. Since there is no non-bailable warrant issued against
accused No.3 to 5, they being already enlarged on bail by the
Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka, question of any apprehension of
being arrested does not exist. Hence, I answer the above point in
the Negative and proceed to pass the following :
ORDER
Anticipatory Bail application filed under Sec.438
of Cr.P.C. by accused No.3 to 5 is hereby rejected.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and typed by him, after corrections,
pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the 23rd day of June 2022).

(NARASHIMSA.M.V.)
LX Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru.