KABC010080142024 IN THE COURT OF LXV ADDL CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY (CCH-66) PRESENT SHRI. HEMANTH KUMAR. C.R , B.A.L., L.L.B., LXV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru. Dated this the 28 th day of March, 2024 Crl.Misc.No.2862/2024 PETITIONER/S:- NAGESH NAYAK. N.A, s/o. Appayya Nayak, Aged about 45 years, R/at No.506, Anugraha Meadows, 4th Cross, Near Canara Bank, Bhuvaneshwarinagar, Dasarahalli Main Road, H.A. Farm, Bengaluru – 560024. [Accused No.5] (By Sri. PR., Advocate) V/s. RESPONDENT:- STATE OF KARNATAKA, By Bagalagunte Police Station, Bengaluru. (Rep. by Public Prosecutor) 2 Crl.Misc.No.2862/2024 ORDER ON BAIL PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION 438 OF CR.P.C This petition is filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C., seeking anticipatory bail to the petitioner/ accused No.5 in Crime No.25/2024 registered by the Bagalagunte police for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 504, 506 r/w Section 149 of IPC.

2. Facts of the case are as follows.-

The complainant Hanumantharaya has lodged the complaint alleging that in the year 2021 the accused No.1 and 2 being the husband and wife had informed the complainant that the Canara Bank is giving loan in the scheme of Central Government scheme of Pradhana Mantri Rojgra Yojana for small scale industries for machines and also give 30% subsidy in this scheme. Believing the words of the accused persons the complainant gave his Aadhaar card, PAN card, IT returns and GST certificate and the accused persons have given duplicate quotation form Manjunatha Engineering workshop to bank and got granted the loan amount in the name of the complainant for a sum of Rs.17,80,000/- from the Canara Bank and got transferred to their account in this scheme for delivering the centering materials to the complainant. When the complainant asked the accused No.1 and 2 they postponed one or the other reason and after three months the bank people informed to the complainant that he has to pay monthly installment of Rs.22,000/- from the account bearing No.170002727628 and thereby the accused persons have misappropriated the amount of Rs.17,80,000/- for their personal use and the accused persons have also cheated the complainant and many other peoples. Alleging the same the complainant has lodged the present complaint. The police on receipt of the said complaint have registered the case in Crime 3 Crl.Misc.No.2862/2024 No.25/2024 against the accused persons for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 504, 506 r/w Section 149 of IPC.

3. The petitioner being aggrieved by the same, has preferred

this bail petition on the following among other grounds. The petitioner submits that he is innocent of the alleged offences and the offences alleged against the petitioner are not punishable with imprisonment for life or death. The petitioner submits that the incident took place on 01.01.2021, but the complaint lodged on 20.01.2024 after lapse of 3 years the complainant has lodged the above said false complaint against the innocent petitioner, hence the ingredients of Sections 506, 504, 406, 420 r/w Section 149 of IPC does not attract against the present petitioner. The petitioner submits that he has been falsely implicated in the above said alleged offences. The petitioner submits that the complainant has clearly admits in the complaint that he has transacted with the other accused persons, but the present petitioner is not aware of the complainant and he has not at all involved in the alleged incident and the petitioner is nowhere connected in the said case. The petitioner submits that the accused No.4 is already enlarged on bail, on the ground of parity the present petitioner is also entitled for bail. The petitioner submits that he is not at all involved in the said case either directly or indirectly and he is ready and willing to abide by the terms and conditions imposed by this court and also co-operate with the investigation. Hence, prays to allow the bail petition.

4. After service of notice, the learned Public Prosecutor has

appeared and filed objections to the said application contending that the offences alleged against the petitioner is grievous in nature and also has further contended that the petitioner and other accused persons have cheated the complainant and the amount involved in the alleged 4 Crl.Misc.No.2862/2024 offence is huge amount. The learned Public Prosecutor has also further contended that the petitioner and other accused persons have also cheated the other persons and they have misappropriated the huge amount. The learned Public Prosecutor has also further contended that the complaint averments prima facie shows that the petitioner is involved in the alleged commission of the offences. The learned Public Prosecutor has further contended that the investigation is still in progress at this stage if the bail petition of the petitioner is allowed there is every chances of petitioner threatening the prosecution witnesses, destroying the evidence, abscond and hamper the trial. Hence, prays to reject the bail petition.

5. Heard the arguments. Now the points that arise for my

consideration.-

1. Whether the petitioner/ accused No.5 has made out sufficient ground to allow the petition filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C?

2. What order?

6. My answer to the above points are.-

Point No.1:– In the Affirmative Point No.2:– As per final order for the following

REASONS

7. Point No.1:- The petitioners counsel has addressed the

arguments contending that the petitioners are innocent of the alleged offences and the offences alleged against the petitioners are not punishable with imprisonment for life or death. The petitioner counsel has further contended that the incident took place on 01.01.2021, but the complaint lodged on 20.01.2024 after lapse of 3 years the 5 Crl.Misc.No.2862/2024 complainant has lodged the above said false complaint against the innocent petitioner, hence the ingredients of Sections 506, 504, 406, 420 r/w Section 149 of IPC does not attract against the present petitioner. The petitioner submits that he has been falsely implicated in the above said alleged offences. The petitioner counsel has further contended that the complainant has clearly admits in the complaint that he has transacted with the other accused persons, but the present petitioner is not aware of the complainant and the petitioner has not at all involved in the alleged incident and the petitioner is nowhere connected in the said case. The petitioner counsel has further contended that the accused No.4 is already enlarged on bail, on the ground of parity the present petitioner is also entitled for bail. The petitioner counsel has further contended that the petitioner is not at all involved in the said case either directly or indirectly and the petitioner is ready and willing to abide by the terms and conditions imposed by this court and also co-operate with the investigation. Hence, prays to allow the bail petition.

8. The learned Public Prosecutor has addressed the

arguments contending that the offences alleged against the petitioner is grievous in nature and also has further contended that the petitioner and other accused persons have cheated the complainant and the amount involved in the alleged offence is huge amount. The learned Public Prosecutor has also further contended that the petitioner and other accused persons have also cheated the other persons and they have misappropriated the huge amount. The learned Public Prosecutor has also further contended that the complaint averments prima facie shows that the petitioner is involved in the alleged commission of the offences. The learned Public Prosecutor has further contended that the investigation is still in progress at this stage if the bail petition of the 6 Crl.Misc.No.2862/2024 petitioner is allowed there is every chances of petitioner threatening the prosecution witnesses, destroying the evidence, abscond and hamper the trial. Hence, prays to reject the bail petition.

9. On perusal of the records it is noticed that the complainant

has lodged the complaint alleging that the accused persons had approached the complainant and informed that the Canara Bank is giving loan under the scheme of Central Government scheme of Pradhana Mantri Rojgra Yojana for small scale industries for machines and also give 30% subsidy in this scheme. Believing the words of the accused persons the complainant has given his Aadhaar card, PAN card, IT returns and GST certificate and other documents. The accused persons having created the duplicate quotation form Manjunatha Engineering workshop to bank and got granted the loan amount in the name of the complainant for a sum of Rs.17,80,000/- from the Canara Bank and got transferred to their account in this scheme for delivering the centering materials to the complainant. When the complainant asked the accused No.1 and 2 they postponed one or the other reason and after three months the bank officials informed the complainant that he has to pay monthly installment of Rs.22,000/- from the account bearing No.170002727628 and later the complainant came to know that the accused persons have misappropriated the amount of Rs.17,80,000/- for their personal use and the accused persons have also cheated the complainant and many other peoples. Alleging the same the complainant has lodged the complaint. The police on receipt of the said complaint have registered the case in Crime No.25/2024 against the accused persons for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 504, 506 r/w Section 149 of IPC. On perusal of the records it is noticed that the offences alleged against the petitioner are not punishable with imprisonment for life or death. The petitioner has 7 Crl.Misc.No.2862/2024 contended that he is ready and willing to abide by the terms and conditions imposed by this court and also co-operate with the investigation and also further contended that the accused No.4 has been already enlarged on bail in the present case by the trial court. The apprehension of the prosecution is that if the bail petition of the petitioner is allowed there is every chances of petitioner threatening the prosecution witnesses, destroy the evidence, abscond and hamper the trial. The said apprehension of the prosecution can be satisfied by imposing stringent conditions. The case is still under the stage of investigation, at this stage it cannot be said that the petitioner has committed the alleged offences. The guilt of the petitioner has to be proved during the course of trial. In the present case as the case is still under the stage of investigation and the accused No.4 having been already granted bail by the trial court and the present petitioner is also entitled for the relief of bail on the ground of parity. As the offences alleged against the petitioner are not punishable with imprisonment for life or death. Admittedly, the petitioner is resident of the address shown in the cause title. If at all during the course of trial, the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of the petitioner, he can be dealt with in accordance with law. Considering all these facts, I am of the opinion that the petitioner can be enlarged on bail by imposing certain conditions, which would meet the apprehension of prosecution. Accordingly, I answer the point No.1 in the 'Affirmative'.

10. Point No.2:- In view of the findings given on point No.1, I

proceed to pass the following.-

ORDER

8 Crl.Misc.No.2862/2024 The petition filed by the petitioner/ accused No.5 under Section 438 Cr.P.C., is hereby allowed. The respondent Bagalagunte police are directed to release the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest in Crime No.25/2024 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 504, 506 r/w Section 149 of IPC, on execution of personal bond for Rs.1,00,000/- with one surety for the likesum subject to the following CONDITIONS:-

1. The petitioner shall appear before the court on all dates of hearing and shall cooperate with the investigation.

2. The petitioner shall appear before the I.O whenever he is called upon for the purpose of investigation.

3. The petitioner shall not tamper with the evidence and shall not threaten, induce allure the prosecution witnesses in what so ever manner.

4. The petitioner shall not involve in any criminal activity.

5. The petitioner shall produce the permanent address proof document.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and then pronounced by me in the Open Court on this 28th day of March, 2024) 9 Crl.Misc.No.2862/2024 (HEMANTH KUMAR. C.R) LXV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.