KABC010088032024
IN THE COURT OF THE LXIII ADDL.CITY CIVIL &
SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH-64) AT BENGALURU
Dated this the 15th day of April 2024
: PRESENT :
Sri.A.V.Patil, B.Com., LL.B.,
LXIII ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS
JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY.
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS NO.3119/2024
PETITIONERS
:
1.

Manjunath.N
S/o Nanjundaiah,
Aged about 33 years,
(Accused No.1)
2.

Sarojamma
W/o Nanjundaiah,
Aged about 50 years,
(Accused No.2)
Both are residing at No.138/20,
6th Main, 3rd Cross, Mysore Road,
Kasthuri Nagar,
Bengaluru – 560 026.

3.

Sudha @ Amuda
W/o Vijay,
Aged about 40 years,
Residing at No.335, 3rd Cross,
Sanjay Nagar, New Timber Yard
2
Crl.Misc.No.3119/2024
Layout, Mysore Road,
Bengaluru – 560 026.
(Accused No.3)
(By Sri.Raju.N, Advocate)
– Vs RESPONDENT
State by Kengeri Police Station,
Bengaluru.

:
(By Public Prosecutor)
ORDER
The petitioners have filed this petition u/s 438 of
Cr.P.C., for their release on bail in the event of their
arrest
in
connection
with
a
case
registered
in
Cr.No.87/2024 of respondent/Police for the offences
punishable u/s 506, 504, 420, 465 r/w 34 of IPC.
2.

It is stated in the bail application that petitioners
are innocent and have not committed any offences as
alleged in the complaint. The petitioners are known to
the complainant and the complainant had borrowed
hand loan from the petitioner No.1 agreeing to pay the
interest on the said amount and she had given the
property documents towards security and thereafter the
complainant failed to pay the interest nor the principle
amount and when the petitioner No.1 demanded her to
3
Crl.Misc.No.3119/2024
repay the said amount, at that time the complainant
herself had voluntarily executed Sale Agreement in favor
of petitioner No.1 and now the complainant has come
up with this false story and falsely implicated the
petitioners in the present case.

Due to escalation of
price in and around the property of the complainant
and in order to extract more money, the complainant
has created this false story. The alleged incident taken
place from 01.09.2022 to 07.02.2024 and the complaint
has been lodged on 15.02.2024. There is inordinate
delay in filing the complaint. The allegations are purely
civil in nature. The offences alleged against the
petitioners are not exclusively punishable either with
death
or
imprisonment
for
life.

They
hail
from
respectable family and have no bad antecedents. They
are ready and willing to abide by the terms and
conditions imposed while releasing them on bail. They
apprehend
their
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
materials collected during the investigation prima facie
disclose that the petitioners have committed the
offences alleged against them. Hence, prayed to dismiss
4
Crl.Misc.No.3119/2024
the bail petition filed by the petitioners.
4.

Heard both side. Perused the materials placed on
record.
5.

The points that arise for my consideration are:
1. Whether the petitioners are 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 affirmative;
Point No.2: As per final order for the following;
REASONS
7.

Point No.1:- Smt.Sathyavathi B.K., lodged the
complaint before the respondent/Police on 15.02.2024
against the petitioners alleging that during the month
of September-2022, the petitioner No.1 and 2 came in
contact with the complainant.

During the time of
Varamahalakshmi
2023,
festival
of
complainant
borrowed a loan of Rs.1,50,000/- from the petitioner
No.1. At that time, the petitioner No.1 had taken her
signatures on some stamp papers. She already repaid
the loan amount. The complainant had discussed with
the petitioner No.1 about selling of her Site No.90 and
91,
Khatha
No.26/1,
situated
at
Ganapathihalli,
5
Crl.Misc.No.3119/2024
Chunchanakuppe village Panchayath. The petitioner
No.1 assured complainant that he will get the sites sold
for higher price and had collected original documents in
respect of the said sites from her. Thereafter, petitioner
No.1 had kept quite. After 3 months, complainant asked
the petitioner No.1 to return her documents, at that
time told that he will not return the documents as the
complainant had executed Agreement of Sale in favor of
petitioner No.2 and handed-over the Sale Agreement.
On seeing the said document, signature found on it was
not of the complainant. The complainant demanded the
petitioners to return the documents, at that time
petitioner No.1 and 2 had abused the complainant in
filthy language and threatened with dire consequences.
The
petitioners
with
an
intention
to
cheat
the
complainant had forged her signature and got prepared
the fabricated Sale Agreement.

The FSL, Delhi have
given Report to that effect the signature found on the
Agreement is not of the complainant..

Hence, the
complainant has filed the complaint for the offences
punishable u/s 506, 504, 420, 465 r/w 34 of IPC. In
view of registering the FIR for non-bailable offences, the
petitioners apprehend their arrest. Hence, they filed
this petition seeking the anticipatory bail.

6
8.

Crl.Misc.No.3119/2024
At the outset, it is material to note that though the
offence punishable u/s 420 of IPC is non-bailable in
nature,
is
not
punishable
with
death
or
life
imprisonment. There is inordinate delay in filing the
complaint. No specific allegations found against the
petitioner No.3. The dispute between the parties
appears to be civil dispute. Though complainant claims
that she had repaid the loan amount but not produced
any documents in support of said contention. Even no
dates mentioned in the complaint about the dates of
payment. The involvement and commission of offences
as alleged by the petitioners is yet to be proved. The
truth is to be ascertained during the course of trial.
Moreover, the offences alleged against the petitioners
are triable by Court of Magistrate. The bail is rule and
jail is an exception. The petitioners are ready to furnish
surety and ready to abide by the conditions that may be
imposed by this Court while passing the order. As per
the averments of bail application, the petitioners are
permanent residents of the address shown in the
petition. The offences alleged against the petitioners are
cognizable offences and as per the provisions of Cr.P.C.
the I.O. may arrest the petitioners without warrant. The
apprehension of the prosecution can be taken care of by
7
Crl.Misc.No.3119/2024
putting suitable conditions. Having regards to the facts
and circumstances of the case, gravity of the offences
alleged,
punishment
petitioners
are
prescribed
residents
of
for
them,
Bengaluru
the
and
apprehension of the arrest of the petitioners by the I.O.
in the considered opinion of this Court the petitioners
are entitled to grant anticipatory bail by imposing
appropriate conditions. Accordingly, I answer this point
in the affirmative.
9.

Point No.2:- In view of my findings on Point No.1,
I proceed to pass the following;
ORDER
The bail petition filed by petitioners u/s 438
of Cr.P.C is hereby allowed and anticipatory bail
is granted.
In the event of their arrest by the I.O. in
Cr.No.87/2024
of
Kengeri
Police
Station,
is
directed to enlarge them on bail on executing
their personal bond for Rs.75,000/- each with
one surety for like sum subject to following
conditions:
1. Petitioner No.1 to 3 shall appear before the
respondent police within 20 days from the
8
Crl.Misc.No.3119/2024
date of this order.
2. Petitioner No.1 to 3 shall not tamper with the
prosecution witnesses in any manner.
3. Petitioner No.1 to 3 shall appear before the
Court during trial and co-operate for the
disposal of the case.
4. Petitioner No.1 to 3 shall not commit similar
to the offence alleged against them.
5. Petitioner No.1 to 3 shall appear before the
I.O. as and when called for investigation.
6. Petitioner No.1 to 3 shall furnish the attested
copy of their respective Adhaar cards and
present residential address proof to the I.O.
Notwithstanding
this
order
of
anticipatory bail do not in any manner limit
or restrict the rights and duties of the Police
or investigating agency, to investigate into
the charges against the petitioners.
(Dictated to the Stenographer Grade-I, typed by her directly on
Computer, taken print out, corrected by me and then pronounced in
the open Court on this the 15th day of April 2024)
(A.V.PATIL)
LXIII Addl. City Civil and Sessions
Judge (CCH-64), Bengaluru City.