1
Crl.Misc.No.507/2023
KABC010015952023
IN THE COURT OF THE LVI ADDL. CITY CIVIL &
SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU (CCH 57)
:Present :
Sri.T.Govindaiah, B.Com., LLB.,
LVI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru.
Dated this the 16th Day of March, 2023.
Crl.Misc.No.507/2023
PETITIONERS 1.

Sri.Raghu R
S/o Rajanna
Aged about 40 years
R/at No.1252/20
1st Main Road,
M.C.Layout
vijayanagar
Bengaluru ­560 040
(By Sri.Sunil Kumar S. Advocate)
V/s
RESPONDENT
1.

State of Karnataka
By: Govindapura
Police Station,
Bengaluru.

2
Crl.Misc.No.507/2023
Lokesh
S/o K.Ramanji
Aged about 42 years
R/at No.002, C Block
Page­I, Atrus Trend Squire
Apartment, Infront of Lakshmi
Narayana Temple, Amrutha Halli
Bengaluru ­560 045
2.

(Rep. by: Public Prosecutor)
ORDER
This is a petition filed by the Petitioner, who is De­facto
complainant under Section 437(5) R/w Sec.439(2) to cancel
anticipatory
bail
of
2nd
respondent
herein
granted
on
29.11.2022 by the IV Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate,
Bengaluru in Cr.No.164/2022, on the file of 1st respondent
police station for the offence punishable under Sec.420, 406
of IPC.
2.

The petitioner sought for cancellation of bail on the
grounds that,
the learned trial court without proper
application of mind and no reasonable grounds has granted
bail to the accused No.1. the trial court has failed to take note
of the gravity of the offence and nature of the offence
3
Crl.Misc.No.507/2023
committed by the accused. The trial court has not taken note
of the fraudulent manner of the accused persons. The order
passed by the trial court is suffers from non application of
mind. Trial court failed to take note of the documentary
evidence as well as the conduct of the accused persons. The
accused persons cheated and created multiple deeds or
charges over the same schedule property. The trial court has
not taken the judgments passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court.
3.

As per the averments of plaint complainant
requested to one Srinidhi who is the brother of his wife to
check out the premises. Accordingly when the brother of
petitioner’s wife had been to the premises, some unknown
persons had occupied the premises and said that, there are
records or entries in his name and threatened. Further the
petitioner obtained revenue entries, he learned that, there
was
a GPA between accused No.1 and his father dated
25.11.2010 bearing No.2581/2010­11 book No.1 Sl.No.46 at
Kacharakanahalli, Sub­Registrar office. Again accused No.1
had executed the sale deed in the name of accused No.2
Shivareddy
dated
07.01.2013.

Thereafter
accused
No.2
Crl.Misc.No.507/2023
4
registering the said property in the name of petitioner. The
accused No.1 had once again got registered the gift deed in
his name through his father on 18.07.2018 at Jalahalli Sub­
Registrar office.

Accordingly accused have cheated the
complainant by creating documents.
4.

Heard the arguments of counsel for the petitioner.

5.

In the light of above materials, following points fall
for decision making of this court:­
1. Whether regular bail granted in favour of 2 nd
respondent on 29.11.2022 in Cr.No.164/2022
by the IV Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate,
Bengaluru deserves to be cancelled?
2. What order?
6.

My findings to the above point as follows:
Point No.1 :
In the negative;
Point No.2 :
As per final order
for the following,
REASONS
7.

POINT NO.1: learned counsel for petitioner would
vehemently contend that 2nd
created
the
multiple
deeds.

respondent has fraudulently
The
trial
court
without
Crl.Misc.No.507/2023
5
appreciating the mind has granted bail to the accused No.1.
Complainant requested to one Srinidhi who is the brother of
his wife to check out the premises. Accordingly when the
brother of petitioner’s wife had been to the premises, some
unknown persons had occupied the premises and said that,
there are records or entries in his name and threatened.
Further the petitioner obtained revenue entries, he learned
that, there was a GPA between accused No.1 and his father
dated
25.11.2010
bearing
No.2581/2010­11
book
No.1
Sl.No.46 at Kacharakanahalli, Sub­Registrar office. Again
accused No.1 had executed the sale deed in the name of
accused
No.2
Shivareddy
dated
07.01.2013.

Thereafter
accused No.2 registering the said property in the name of
petitioner. The accused No.1 had once again got registered the
gift deed in his name through his father on 18.07.2018 at
Jalahalli Sub­Registrar office.

Accordingly accused have
cheated the complainant by creating documents.
8.

On perusal of the averments of complaint, there was
a property dispute between the accused and complainant. As
per the averments of complaint accused have cheated the
6
Crl.Misc.No.507/2023
complainant by creating documents. However it is the duty of
the petitioner to take care at the time of purchasing the
property. If really documents are not correct in respect of
property, he has to take care at the time of registration of the
sale deed. Therefore the dispute between the complainant and
accused is purely civil in nature. Therefore if really the
petitioner put loss or inconvenience, while purchasing the
property he has to approach the civil court to seek proper
remedy. Further respondent No.2 is a permanent resident of
Bengaluru city and there is no chance to escape from the
jurisdiction of the court. Accordingly at the time of granting
the
bail
learned
Addl.

Chief
Metropolitan
Magistrate,
Bengaluru have applied proper judicious mind. There are no
grounds whatsoever to cancel the bail. No doubt this court
has power to cancel the impugned bail of 2 nd respondents.
Hence, impugned bail order of erstwhile IV Addl. Chief
Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru does not deserve for
cancellation. Under such circumstances, this court is of the
opinion that there is no necessary to interfere with the order
passed by the IV Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate,
7
Bengaluru.

Crl.Misc.No.507/2023
Accordingly, this point is answered in the
negative.
9.

POINT NO.2: In the light of finding on the above
point, bail petition on hand to be rejected. In the result, this
court proceeds to pass the following:
ORDER
Petition
filed
U/Sec.437(5)
R/w
Sec.439(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure
seeking cancellation of anticipatory bail order
granted in favour of 2nd respondents is hereby
rejected.
(Dictated to the stenographer directly on computer, corrected and
pronounced by me in the open court on this the 16th day of March, 2023)
(T.Govindaiah)
LVI Additional City Civil & Sessions
Judge, Bengaluru City.

8
Crl.Misc.No.507/2023
Order pronounced in open Court
(Vide separate order)
ORDER
Pet ition filed U/Sec.437(5) R/w
Sec.439(2) of Code of Criminal
Procedure seeking cancellation of
anticipatory bail order granted in
favour of 2nd respondents is hereby
rejected.

LVI Addl.City Civil & Sessions
9
Crl.Misc.No.507/2023
Judge, Bengaluru.