KABC010087792024
Presented on
Registered on
Decided on
Duration
: 28-03-2024
: 28-03-2024
: 08-04-2024
: 0 years, 0 months,
10 days
IN THE COURT OF THE LXIV ADDL.CITY CIVIL &
SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH-65) AT BENGALURU)
Dated this 8th day of April, 2024
-: P R E S E N T :Smt. Kalpana M.S.,
B.Sc., LL.M.,PGD-CLCF.,
LXIV ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE,
CCH-65, BENGALURU CITY.
Crl.Misc.No.3115/2024
PETITIONER
:
Sri Ramakrishna Reddy,
S/o. Late. Venkata Reddy,
Aged about 59 years,
R/at. 176, 1st Main, 1st Cross,
Near Lakshmi Narasimha Swamy
Temple, Bhubaneshwar Nagar,
R.T.Nagar,
Bengaluru-032.
Also at:
Thollapalli, Pathapally,
2
Crl.Misc.No.3115/2024
Bagepally Tq,
Chikkaballapura District.
(Accused No.1)
(By Sri. B.Siddeshwara, Advocate)
/Vs/
RESPONDENT
:
State of Karnataka by
Hebbal Police Station, Bengaluru.
(Rep.
By
Prosecutor)
Learned
Public
ORDERS ON ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION
U/S.438 OF CR.P.C.
Petitioner/accused No.1 has filed this petition
U/s.438 of Code Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred
as Cr.P.C.,) seeking anticipatory bail in Cr.No.20/2024 of
Hebbal
police
station,
Bengaluru
for
the
offences
punishable U/s.120B, 420, 465, 467 R/w.Sec.34 of
Indian
Penal
Code
(hereinafter
referred
as
I.P.C.)

pending on the file of VIII-Addl. Chief Metropolitan
Magistrate Court, Bengaluru.

3
Crl.Misc.No.3115/2024
2.

Learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the
State has filed objections statement along with report of
the Investigating Officer opposing the bail petition.
3.
the
For the purpose of brevity, the facts stated in
petition
and
objections
will
be
mentioned
at
appropriate stage of the orders.
4.

Heard arguments. Perused the materials on
record.
5.

The points do arise for my consideration are;
1. Whether petitioner/accused No.1
is entitled for grant of anticipatory
bail U/s.438 of Code of Criminal
Procedure?
2. What Order?

6.

For
the
reasons
stated
hereinafter,
findings on the above points are as follows;
Point No.1: In the Negative
Point No.2: As per final order
for the following:-
my
4
Crl.Misc.No.3115/2024
REASONS
7.

POINT No.1:- Along with petition, petitioner
has produced certified copies of complaint, F.I.R. order
sheet in Cr.No.20/2024, memorandum of plaint in
O.S.No.5129/2024, copy of Aadhar card and copy of bail
order passed in Crl.Misc.No.2598/2024.

Perused the
same.
8.

The facts set out in the complaint, F.I.R.,
in
brief, is as under;
That complainant/J.Rathnamaiah and his
wife
have purchased property from accused No.1. Thereafter,
the revenue records was transferred in their names.
Meanwhile, all the accused persons colluded with each
other and filed civil suit in O.S.No.5129/2022 and
obtained
compromise decree by suppressing the true
facts to grab the property of the complainant. They have
5
Crl.Misc.No.3115/2024
filed complaint to take legal action for impersonation,
cheating, and life threat. On the basis of the said
complaint,
respondent police have registered F.I.R. for
the offences punishable U/s.120(B), 420, 465, 467
R/w.Sec.34 of I.P.C. and proceeded with investigation.
9.

Learned counsel for the petitioner/accused
vehemently argued that, he is innocent of the alleged
offences. The alleged offences are neither punishable
with death penalty nor imprisonment for life He has not
committed said offences. He has been falsely implicated
in this case.

The dispute is civil in nature. He is no way
concerned to the alleged offence. The entire complaint is
vague and the same is civil in nature. He hails from
respectable family and having deep roots in the society.
The petitioner is ready and willing to abide by the terms
and conditions that may be imposed by this court. There
is serious apprehension of arrest. The respondent police
6
Crl.Misc.No.3115/2024
are making hectic efforts to arrest the petitioner. The
learned counsel submits that, the petitioner has made
out prima facie case for grant of pre-arrest bail.

10.

The Learned Public Prosecutor vehemently
argued that, the petitioner has committed heinous
offences. He is an habitual offender. In the event of grant
of bail, there is chances of tampering and terrorizing the
witnesses and he may remain absconding and not
available for the trial. He may indulge in similar offences.
Hence, prays for rejection of the bail petition.
11. In this backdrop, this court has given careful
consideration to the case papers. It is pertinent to note
that,
I.O report provides that, the following cases are
pending against accused No.1:-
7
Crl.Misc.No.3115/2024
1. Cr.No.188/2008
for
the
offence
punishable
U/s.420 of IPC pending before the 3rd ACMM in
C.C.No.26524/2009.
2.

Cr.No.300/2012
for
the
offence
punishable
U/s.420 of IPC pending in C.C.No.10661/2014.
3. Cr.No.288/2012
for
the
offence
punishable
offence
punishable
U/s.420 of IPC.
4. Cr.No.290/2012
for
the
U/s.420 of IPC.
5. Cr.No.297/2012 for the offence punishable U/s.420
of IPC .
6. Cr.No.180/2012 for the offence punishable U/s.420
of IPC pending before the 3rd ACMM in C.C.No.211/2013.
7. Cr.No.382/2012 for the offence punishable U/s.467,
468, 471 r/w. 34 of IPC.
The above list show that, there are various criminal
cases for the various offences are pending against this
petitioner. He has criminal antecedents.

8
Crl.Misc.No.3115/2024
12.

In
the
decision
of
the Hon’ble
High
Court of Karnataka reported in 2018 SCC OnLine Kar
1822;Manikantan
@ Bombe Ramesh Vs.

State of
Karnataka, the Hon’ble Court pleased to observe that;
“…one
of
the
factors to
be
considered in granting of bail is the
antecedents of the accused. If the
accused
is
offender,
found to
then
his
be
a habitual
bail application
can be rejected. Since the material on
record
prima
facie
showed
the
petitioner’s involvement in crime. The
report of the investigating officer shows
that, the petitioner is involved in 21
other cases apart from this case. Having
regard to these facts, it is not a fit case
for grant of bail.
The dictum of law is squarely applicable to this case.
Similar to the facts and circumstances of cited decision,
in the present case also, the petitioner/accused No.1 is
9
Crl.Misc.No.3115/2024
involved in similar offences. The learned counsel for the
petitioner produced case status of the cases listed in the
I.O Report. This further establishes the pendency of
various criminal cases. The line of arguments that the
petitioner is regular in his appearance in all the cases,
cannot be taken as ground to allow this petition.
13.

In the latest decision of the Hon’ble Apex
Court reported in (2022) 4 SCC 497 Brijmanidevi V/s.
Pappu Kumar and another, 3 Judges Bench of the
Hon’ble Court laid down principles that must be kept in
mind for grant of bail. In the said decision, it is observed
that;
“ though the period of custody is a
relevant factor, the same has to be
weighed simultaneously with the totality
of the circumstances and the criminal
antecedents – Further, these are to be
weighed in the scale of collective cry and
desire and that societal concern has to
10
Crl.Misc.No.3115/2024
be kept in view in juxtaposition to
individual liberty.”
It is further observed that;
“While we are conscious of the fact that
liberty of an individual is an invaluable
right, at the same time while considering
an application for bail Courts cannot lose
sight of serious nature of the accusations
against an accused and the facts that
have a bearing in the case, particularly,
when the accusations may not be false,
frivolous or vexatious in nature but are
supported by adequate material brought
on record so as to enable a Court to
arrive at a prima facie conclusion. While
considering an application for grant of
bail a prima facie conclusion must be
supported by reasons and must be
arrived at after having regard to the vital
facts of the case brought on record. Due
consideration must be given to facts
suggestive of the nature of crime, the
criminal antecedents of the accused, if
any, and the nature of punishment that
would follow a conviction vis-a-vis the
offences alleged against an accused.”
11
Crl.Misc.No.3115/2024
The ratio is aptly applicable to case on hand. In
case of grant of bail, it would send wrong message to
society in general and prospective offender in particular.
Considering the serious nature of the offence and huge
amount involved in various cases listed above and the
conduct of the accused person, this Court is not inclined
to extend the relief in favour of the petitioner.

In the
event of grant of bail, there is more chances of repetition
of similar offence and also tampering of witnesses. As
there are no grounds made out to release the petitioner
on bail, this Court is of the opinion that, petitioner is not
entitled for grant of bail. Therefore, point No.1 is
answered in the Negative.
15.

POINT
NO.2:
In
view
of
the
aforesaid
discussion, this court proceed to pass the following :
12
Crl.Misc.No.3115/2024
ORDER
Anticipatory bail petition U/s.438 of
Cr.P.C., filed by the petitioner/accused No.1 is
rejected.
(Dictated
to the Stenographer Grade-I, transcribed by her, then
corrected, signed and pronounced by me in open court on this
8th day of April 2024).

(KALPANA M.S.)
LXIV ADDL.CITY CIVIL &
SESSIONS JUDGE, CCH-65,
BENGALURU CITY.

13
Crl.Misc.No.3115/2024
Order pronounced in the open
Court, vide separate Order:ORDER
Anticipatory bail petition U/s.438 of Cr.P.C.,
filed by the petitioner/accused No.1 is rejected.
LXIV ADDL.CITY CIVIL &
SESSIONS JUDGE, CCH-65,
BENGALURU CITY.