KABC010089502024
Presented on
Registered on
Decided on
Duration
: 01-04-2024
: 01-04-2024
: 10-04-2024
: 0 years, 0 months,
9 days
IN THE COURT OF THE LXIV ADDL.CITY CIVIL &
SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH-65) AT BENGALURU)
Dated this 10th 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.3200/2024
PETITIONER
:
Sri S.Lakan,
S/o. Suresh Babu,
Aged about 32 years,
R/at. 110, 2nd Main Road,
11th Block, Behind deepashri
Nursing Home,
Bengaluru-560 072.
(By Sri. Basavaraj Hallad,
Advocate)
2
Crl.Misc.No.3200/2024
/Vs/
RESPONDENT
:
State of Karnataka by
Rajarajeshwarai Nagar, Police
Station, Bengaluru.
(Rep.
By
Prosecutor)
Learned
Public
ORDERS ON ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION
U/S.438 OF CR.P.C.
Petitioner/accused has filed this petition U/s.438
of Code Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred as
Cr.P.C.,) seeking anticipatory bail in NCR.No.61/2024 of
Rajarajeshwarainagar police station, Bengaluru for the
offences punishable U/s.353, 504, 506 of Indian Penal
Code (hereinafter referred as I.P.C.).
2.

Learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the
State has filed objections statement along with report of
the Investigating Officer opposing the bail petition.

3
Crl.Misc.No.3200/2024
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 is
entitled for grant of anticipatory
bail U/s.438 of Code of Criminal
Procedure?

2. What Order?
6.

For
the
reasons
stated
hereinafter,
my
findings on the above points are as follows;
Point No.1: In the Affirmative
Point No.2: As per final order
for the following:REASONS
7.
has
POINT No.1:- Along with petition, petitioner
produced
certified
copies
of
complaint,
4
Crl.Misc.No.3200/2024
NCR.No.61/2024, copy of Aadhar card.

Perused the
same.
8.

The facts set out in the complaint, F.I.R.,
in
brief, is as under;
That complainant- Sri.G.Shankara Murthy, Senior
Assistant Interim Director in BBMP has alleged that
Mr.Lakhan
ie.,
petitioner
claiming
to
be
the
representative of Lakshmi Enterprises Managing the
parks situated in Rajarajeshwari Nagar Wards, contacted
the complainant regarding contract for Management of
the park.
9.

During 2021-22, they have created fake documents
and got multicrore contracts. Coming to know about the
fake documents created by the petitioner, their tenders
which was called in the year 2023 and 2024 was
cancelled by the complainant. Due to which, the
5
Crl.Misc.No.3200/2024
petitioner has called the complainant and criminally
intimidated, threatened with dire consequences and
insulted
the
complainant
with
unparliamentary
language. Hence, complainant filed the complaint before
the jurisdictional
police, acknowledging the same the
respondent police have issued NCR.No.61/2024.
10.

Learned counsel for the petitioner/accused
vehemently argued that, he is innocent of the alleged
offences. He has not committed said offences.
been falsely implicated in this case.

He has
It is an counter
complaint against the petitioner, as the petitioner has
filed complaint against the complainant In Lokayukta on
14.03.2024.

There is serious apprehension of arrest.

The respondent police are making hectic efforts to arrest
the petitioner. 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
6
Crl.Misc.No.3200/2024
may be imposed by this court. The petitioner is a
permanent resident of the address mentioned in the
cause title.

He is having movable and immovable
property . He is ready to co-operate with the invesigaion
officer. The learned counsel submits that, the petitioner
has made out prima facie case for grant of pre-arrest
bail.
11.
registered
The learned APP submitted that,
in pursuance of the
informant G.Shankara Murthy.

no FIR is
complaint of first
The petitioner has not
made out grounds to grant bail.
12. Admittedly, the complainant police have issued
NCR.No.61/2024 dated 11.03.2024.

If at all the
complaint averments shows commission of cognizable
offence, certainly, FIR would be registered and proceeded
with the investigation. That process is not done in the
7
Crl.Misc.No.3200/2024
present case. Therefore, this court opined that, the
petitioner has not made apprehension of arrest.
13.

That apart, it could be gathered from the
complaint averments that, there is allegations of criminal
intimidation and life threat allegedly posed by the
petitioner herein to the first informant. But there is no
such allegations of using criminal force or assault to
deter the public servant from discharging his duties.
Therefore,
at
this
stage,
this
court
opined
that,
complaint or NCR does not disclose the ingredients to
attracts section 353 of IPC. The other two offences are
bailable in nature.
14.

The tone and tenor of Section 438 of Cr.P.C
provides that court can exercise discretion to grant bail
in cases where the petitioner has made out apprehension
of arrest for commission of non bailable offence.

To put
8
Crl.Misc.No.3200/2024
forth other way, the provisions is not extendable to
bailable offences. As discussed earlier, Section 504 and
Section 506 of IPC are bailable in nature. In that view of
the matter, this court opined that, the petitioner has not
made out any valid ground to exercise judicial discretion
in his favour in way of granting anticipatory bail.
Accordingly, 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 :
ORDER
Anticipatory bail petition U/s.438 of
Cr.P.C., filed by the petitioner is rejected.
(Dictated to the Judgment Writer directly on computer, typed by her, then
corrected, signed and pronounced by me in open court on this 10 th day of
April, 2024).

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

9
Crl.Misc.No.3200/2024
10
Crl.Misc.No.3200/2024
Order pronounced in the open
Court, vide separate Order:ORDER
Anticipatory bail petition U/s.438
of Cr.P.C., filed by the petitioner
is
rejected.

LXIV ADDL.CITY CIVIL &
SESSIONS JUDGE, CCH-65,
BENGALURU CITY.