KABC010017322023
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 January 2023
: Crl.Misc.No. 550/2023:
PETITIONER:-
Purushottam Reddy
S/o Chennappa,
Aged about 60 years
R/at No.615, “Mathrushree Nilaya”
BTS Main Road, Arakere Village,
Bannerghatta Road,
Bengaluru 560 076.
(Rep by Sri. Anand Muttalli & Associates, Advs)
V/s
RESPONDENT :
The State of Karnataka
By: Channammanakere Achukattu P.S.
Bengaluru.
(Rep. by: Public Prosecutor)
ORDER
Accused No.1 in Channammanakere Achukattu Police Station
Crime No. 281/2022 has filed this application under Sec. 438 of
Cr.P.C for grant of anticipatory bail.

2
Crl.Misc.No.550/2023
2. Brief facts of the case as forthcoming from bail application
is as under :
First informant is M.Ramu, a builder, he is
running his
business under the name and style of M/s R R Enterprises. First
informant had entered into a Joint Development Agreement with
accused No.1 to 3 in respect of land bearing Sy. No.83/1, 83/2 of
Arakere village, said Joint Development Agreement was registered
in the office of Sub-registrar, Jayanagar, (JP Nagar), Bengaluru, built
up area was agreed to be shared in the proportion of 62% to
developer and 38% to land owner.

Roshan Platinum Apartment
project was completed in the year 2018, occupancy certificate could
not be obtained from BBMP. In so far as flat No. 314 is concerned
accused Nos.4 to 6 are purchasers, in the year 2021 they filed a
complaint before RERA authority against first informant and accused
No.1 to 3. In first information, it is alleged that on 3.2.2022, first
informant secured documents through e-mail produced by accused
No.4 to 6 before RERA authority and learnt that accused No.1 to 3
have executed a sale agreement in respect of flat No.314,
agreement to sell dated 4.4.2017, whereunder, signature of first
informant has been forged, accused No.1 to 3 have agreed to sell
3
Crl.Misc.No.550/2023
flat for Rs.70,20,000/- on the basis of the said agreement, accused
No.4 to 6 have taken a loan of Rs.1,08,00,000/- from Syndicate
Bank, in the said agreement possession of flat is shown to be
delivered in the year 2017, but, project was not yet completed on
that date, RERA authority has passed an order directing first
informant and accused Nos. 1 to 3 to pay Rs.37,80,000/- towards
interest for delayed possession.
3. Petitioner/accused No.1 has urged the following grounds :
Flat No.314
was gifted by
petitioner to
2nd accused.

Subsequently, 2nd and 3rd accused entered into an agreement to sell
vis-a-vis flat No. 314 with the 4th , 5th and 6th accused, pursuant to gift
thereof made to them by the petitioner, it was only the former
persons who could sell the said flat, therefore, there was no question
of petitioner signing the agreement to sell, let alone him forging the
signature of the first informant in the agreement to sell.

The
complaint filed by 4th, 5th, and 6th accused before RERA authority,
Bengaluru, against the petitioner is wrong and arbitrary. Upon bare
reading of the complaint, first informant has attributed the alleged act
of fabrication of agreement to sell and forgery of his signature
thereon to 4th , 5th , and 6th accused only. Complainant and other
4
Crl.Misc.No.550/2023
accused are taking advantage of the health issues of the petitioner
and forging his signatures and selling the properties without
knowledge of petitioner. Petitioner is a senior citizen and suffers
from several mental and physical ailments, was diagnosed with
schizophrenia, petitioner is innocent, has not committed any offence
as alleged in the complaint, if at all petitioner was part of the alleged
sale of the flat No. 314, then he should have also received part of
the sale consideration.

Petitioner hails from a respectable family
having deep roots in the society, he is a permanent resident of
Bengaluru, offence alleged are not punishable with death or life
imprisonment, will provide sufficient surety. Respondent police are
making hectic attempts to arrest the petitioner, if he is arrested it will
lead to humiliation and cause undue hardship to him.
4. Prosecution has filed objections to bail application along
with Memo of instruction given by the Investigating Officer, copy of
Case Diary is also enclosed.

In the objection, public prosecutor
has reiterated the averments made in first information.

It is stated
that there are no grounds for granting anticipatory bail to petitioner,
grounds urged in the petition are not at all true.

If petitioner is
granted anticipatory bail, he will abscond from the jurisdiction of this
Crl.Misc.No.550/2023
5
Court, threaten the witness and destruct the evidence collected
against him. Hence prayed for rejection of bail.
5. Heard the learned Advocate for petitioner and the learned
Public Prosecutor.
6. The point that arise for consideration is :
(1) Whether Anticipatory bail application filed by
accused No.1 in Channammanakere Achhukattu
Police Station Crime No. 281/2022 deserves to
be allowed ?
7. My finding to the above point is in the Affirmative, for the
following :REASONS
8.

Point No.1:
Along with bail application, police notice
issued under Section 41(a) of Cr P C dated 12.1.2023 is furnished,
copies of Joint Development Agreement dated 2.8.2013, copy of
registered General Power of Attorney dated 2.8.2013, copy of the
partition deed dated 8.12.2014 entered into between accused No.1
to 3, copy of the medical records
pertaining
of accused No.1/petitioner
to the premorbid treatment
which he has taken in
NIMHANS, Cadabam’s hospital are furnished. Sum and substance
of the first information is that signature of first informant has been
6
forged
Crl.Misc.No.550/2023
in the alleged agreement to sell dated 4.4.2017.

Even
according to first informant accused Nos. 4 to 6 filed complaint
before RERA authority in the year 2021, first informant secured the
copies of the documents produced by accused Nos.4 to 6 before
RERA on 3.2.2022. Thus, the date of knowledge to first informant is
3.2.2022, first information is lodged on 25.11.2022.
9. It is necessary to note that there is a backdrop of litigation
pending before RERA authority that has been persuaded before
RERA authority, said authority has passed an order directing first
informant and accused Nos. 1 to 3 to pay interest of Rs.37,80,000/-.
Whether first informant is trying to avoid implementation of orders
passed by RERA authority by filing first information
ascertained in
a full fledged trial.

is to be
Prima-facie it appears that
transaction is civil in nature, criminal texture cannot be allowed to be
given to litigation which is a prima-facie civil in nature. Further, to
what extent and how the agreement to sell dated 4.4.2017 in respect
of flat bearing No. 314, affects right, title, interest and enjoyment of
68% of built up area by the builder (first informant) is also a matter
which is civil in nature. Agreement to sell dated 4.4.2017, appears
to be a written instrument, copies of which are available before
7
Crl.Misc.No.550/2023
RERA and also Bank, where accused Nos. 4 to 6 have obtained
loan, it cannot be destructed or deface to any extent. Considering
the health condition of accused No.1 and also taking into
consideration that the offence alleged against accused No.1 are not
punishable with death or life imprisonment, apprehension of the
prosecution can be met by imposing conditions.

Hence, I answer
the above point in the Affirmative and proceed to pass the following :
ORDER
Anticipatory Bail application filed by Petitioner in
Channammanakere Achukattu Police Station Crime No.
281/2022 is hereby allowed. Petitioner/Accused No.1
shall be enlarged on bail in the event of his arrest
subject to the following :
CONDITIONS
1. Accused No.1/petitioner shall execute personal
bond for Rs 50,000/- with one surety.
2. Petitioner/ Accused No.1 shall not tamper with
the prosecution witness or hamper the investigation
process in any manner.
3. Petitioner/ Accused No.1 shall attend before
the learned Magistrate on all dates of hearing.

8
Crl.Misc.No.550/2023
5. Petitioner/ Accused No.1 shall not leave the
jurisdiction of Trial Court without prior permission.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and typed by him, after
corrections, pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the 23 rd day of January
2023).

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