Crl.Misc.No.2978/2024 KABC010084372024 IN THE COURT OF THE XXVII ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH 9) AND HOLDING CONCURRENT CHARGE OF LXIX ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH 70) BANGALORE CITY Dated this the 16th day of April, 2024 PRESENT Sri. Hareesha A., B.A.,LL.B, XXVII Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge (CCH 9) and also holding concurrent charge of the court of 69th Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge (CCH 70). Crl.Misc.No.2978/2024 Petitioner: Noushada Sultan @ Siddiq Mohammed Sultan s/o Syed Mohiuddin Sultan Saheb aged about 49 years, r/at New No. 34, Old No. 4, 1st floor, 2nd main road, 4th cross, Maruthi layout, Bengaluru 560 029 (By Sri B. R. Akbar, Advocate) ­V/S­ Respondent : State of Karnataka by Crl.Misc.No.2978/2024 Marathahalli P.S, B`lore (Represented by Public Prosecutor) ORDER ON BAIL PETITION FILED U/SEC. 438 OF CR.P.C. The petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction of this court under Sec. 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) citing a reasonable apprehension of imminent arrest by the respondent police, in connection with Crime No. 14/2023, wherein the petitioner stands as accused of offences punishable u/sec. 406, 417, 420, 506 r/w 34 of Indian Panel Code.

2. The petitioner, invoking the plea of false implication

and citing the absence of prima facie material supporting the commission of offenses under Section 406, 417, 420, 506 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code, expresses genuine apprehension regarding imminent arrest by the respondent police. Consequently, the petitioner seeks relief in the form of pre­ arrest bail to secure his liberty.

3. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has filed Crl.Misc.No.2978/2024

objection contending that, there exists prima­facie material on record indicating that the petitioner has allegedly committed the offences in question, hence sought to dismiss the petition.

4. I have heard the argument an perused the petition

averments. The point that would arise for my determination is:

1. Whether the petitioner has made out any grounds to enlarge him on bail u/sec. 438 of Cr.P.C.?

2. What order?

5. My answer is in the affirmative for the following;

REASONS

6. POINT NO.1; On 27.1.2023 the FIR registered with

Jayanagar Police Station was transferred to the respondent police station on the basis of the territorial jurisdiction. The complainant by name Narendra Babu K , the Directer of Hiren Wahin Build Tech Ltd. Situated at Panathur, Varthur hobli, Bangalore South Taluk lodged a complaint with Jayanagar Police alleging that the accused No.1 entered into agreement with one L.Prakash the owner of land bearing Sy. No. 81, 86 Crl.Misc.No.2978/2024 measuring 1 acre 18 guntas to develop the land and accordingly the complainant and accused No.1 raised the funds by way of loan from other persons and entered into a Memorandum of Understanding with them to sell the flats. However, it is alleged that accused No.1 by colluding with petitioner herein sold that flats in favor of third parties without the signature of the complainant and therefore committed the aforesaid offences. Further it is alleged that the accused persons have threatened with dire consequences. The petitioner was enlarged on bail in the earlier occasion u/sec. 438 of Cr.P.C. in respect of Cr. No. 216/2022 registered by the Jayanagar Police vide Crl.Misc. No. 10103/2022, subsequently on territorial jurisdiction the case was transferred to the Marathahalli police station i.e. the respondent herein wherein the FIR was registered in Cr. No. 14/2023 for the offences punishable u/sec. 406, 417, 420, 506 r/w 34 of IPC . Therefore, the petitioner has apprehension of arrest by the respondent police in connection with present FIR. It appears that the apprehension of petitioner is well founded and in view of the order passed b y Crl.Misc.No.2978/2024 this court in the earlier occasion granting anticipatory bail to the petitioner vide Crl. Misc . 10103/2022, I am of the view that it is just and proper to enlarge the petitioner on bail by imposing stringent conditions and moreover the FIR registered about non­bailable offences, albeit triable by the Court of Magistrate of First Class, based on documentary evidence, I opine that there exists no legal impediment to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. To address the prosecution's concerns regarding the potential flight risk, stringent conditions can be imposed as a measure to mitigate such apprehensions. Accordingly the Point No.1 is answered in the affirmative.

7. Point No.2: By considering the above over all reasons

this court proceed to pass the following;

ORDER

The petition filed u/sec. 438 of Cr.P.C. by the Petitioner is hereby allowed. In the event of arrest of petitioner, in connection with Cr. No. 14/2023 registered by the respondent police Crl.Misc.No.2978/2024 station for the offence punishable u/sec. 406, 417, 420, 506 r/w 34 of IPC, the respondent police hereby directed to release him on bail, on obtaining his personal bond for Rs.1,00,000/­ with a surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the Investigating officer, subject to the following conditions.

1. The petitioner shall appear before the police and trial court as and when summoned for the purpose of investigation or trial.

2. The petitioner shall not threaten or tamper with the Prosecution witnesses directly or indirectly.

3. The petitioner shall not commit similar offence.

4. The petitioner shall cooperate for investigation.

(Dictated to the Stenographer Grade ­ I, transcript thereof is corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in open court on this the 16th day of April, 2024) (Hareesha A.) XXVII Addl. CC & SJ holding c/c of 69th Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge,Bangalore.