IN THE COURT OF LXXXI ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND
SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU (CCH 82)
Present
Sri B. Jayantha Kumar, B.A.Law., LL.M.,
LXXXI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru City (CCH-82)
(Special Court exclusively to deal with criminal cases
related to elected former and sitting MPs/ MLAs in the
State of Karnataka)
Dated this the 18th day of July, 2022
Crl.Misc.No. 5989 / 2022
PETITIONERS:
1) Sri Sharath Bache Gowda S/o
B.N.Bachegowda
Aged about 39 years
Address – R/At Beedaganahalli Vilalge,
2) Sri B V Byregowda S/o
Venkataramanappa
Aged about 53 years
R/At Thammegowda Extension,
6th Cross, Hosakote Town
3) Sri Manjuanth S/o Chikkappayanna
Aged about 57 years
R/At Doddahalluru, Kasaba Hobli
Hosakote
4) Sri Gopal S/o late Bache Gowda
Aged about 45 years
R/At Ittasandra Grama,
Nandagudi Hobli, Hosakote
-2-
Crl. Misc. No.5989/2022
5) Sri Ganesh S/o Byranna
Aged about 46 years
R/At Ittasandra Grama,
Nandagudi Hobli, Hosakote
6) Sri M.Manjuantha S/o
Munishamappa
Aged about 32 years
r/At Chikkahulluru
Jodi Dasarahalli
7) Sri Manjuanth Alias Lawyer Manju
S/o Late Nandish Gowda
Aged about 43 years
r/At T G Extension
8) Sri Vijay Kumar Alias Pepsi Vijay
Kumar
S/o Late Nandish Gowda
Aged about 45 years
r/At T G Extension
Hoskote Taluk
9) Sri Srinivas @ Excise Srinivas S/o
Late Chikkamadayya
Aged about 70 years
r/At Katoorahalli Main Road
Near Milana Kalyana Mantapa
Hosakote Taluk
10) Sri Halloorappa S/o late
H.M.Muniyappa
Aged about 62 years
r/At Katoorhalli Main Road
-3-
Crl. Misc. No.5989/2022
Next To Brick Factory
Hosakote Taluk
11) Sri Raja @ Nalloda S/o Lakshmi
Nayak
Aged about 28 years
r/At K H B Colony
Near Citizen School
Hosakote
12) Sri Subburaj @ Stamp Vendor
Subbanna
S/o Muniyappa
Aged about 45 years
Teachers colony,
Behind OM Sri School
Hosakote
13) Sri Manjunatha @ Bulb Manja
S/o Late Srinivas
Aged about 43 years
MV Extension, Hosakote
14) Sri Muninanjappa S/o
Ramakrishnappa
Aged about 64 years
R/o Near Citizen School
Vivekananda Nagara
Hosakote
15) Sri Keshav Murthy S/o
Narayanappa
Aged about 44 years
R/o Kannoorahalli Road
Ramakrishna Road
-4-
Crl. Misc. No.5989/2022
M.V.Extension
Hosakote
16) Sri Narayanappa R/o Hosakote
17) Sri Dheeraj S/o Govinda Swamy
Aged about 25 years
r/At Near Citizen School
K H B Colony
Vivekananda Nagar
Hosakote
18) Sri Ravi @ Y S R S/o Muniyappa
Aged about 40 years
r/At Gowtham Colony
Near Parvathipura
Hosakote Taluk
19) Shiva @ Y S M S/o late Gangappa
Aged about 30 years
r/At Behind Indian Petrol Bunk
Hosakote
20) Sri Vijay Kumar S/o
Venkataramappa
Aged about 58 years
r/At Gowtham Colony
21) Sri Krishna Murthy S/o Kempanna
Aged about 47 years
r/At Poojena agrahara
Kasaba Hobli
22) Sri M Lakshman Gowda S/o
Munishamappa
-5-
Crl. Misc. No.5989/2022
Aged about 40 years
r/At Ramakrishna Road,
Kannura Halli Road
M V Extension
Hoskote
23) Sri Nataraj S/o Late Anandappa
Aged about 45 years
r/At Next To ASI Compound
Gattiganabbe Road
Hosakote
24) Sri Muniayappa S/o late
Channarayappa
Aged about 56 years
r/At Uppara Halli
25) Sri Muniraju S/o Byrappa
Aged about 34 years
r/At Chikka Aralagere Grama
Suli Bele Hobli
Hosakote Taluk
26) Sri Eeranna Swamy S/o late
Narayappa
Aged about 48 years
R/o Yenagunte,
Sulibele Hobli
Hosakote Taluk
27) Sri Usmaan S/o Khader Sharief
Aged about 35 years
r/At 3rd Cross
Sulibele Town
-6-
Crl. Misc. No.5989/2022
28) Sri Babu Reddy S/o Muni Reddy
Aged about 46 years
r/At Muthusandra
Anugondanahalli Hobli
29) Sri B M Prakash S/o Muniswamy
Gowda
Aged about 42 years
r/At Bodana hosahalli,
Anugondanahalli Hobli
30) Sri T R Rajashekar S/o Siddappa
Aged about 45 years
r/At Tavarekere Grama
Nandagudi Hobli
31) Sri Manjunatha S/o Narayanappa
r/At Naduvinapura
Nadnagudi Hobli
32) Sri Lakshman S/o late Kempanna
Aged about 45 years
r/At Kondrahalli
Nandangudi Hobli
33) Sri S M Krishna S/o late
Muniveerappa
Aged about 39 years
r/At Nandagudi Grama
34) Sri Jagadish S/o Rudraiah
Aged about 39 years
r/At Hettakki Grama
Nandagudi Hobli
-7-
Crl. Misc. No.5989/2022
35) Sri Manu Chakravarthy S/o
H.M.Sadashivaiah
Aged about 23 years
r/At Hettakki Grama
Nandagudi Hobli
36) Sri Narayana Swamy S/o
Muniyappa
Aged about 43 years
r/At Kalappana Halli Grama
Nandagudi Hobli
37) Sri Venkatesh S/o Narayanappa
Aged about 45 years
r/At Lingapura Grama
Nandagudi Hobli
38) Sri Mansoor S/o Ayub Khan
Aged about 38 years
r/At Bailanarasapura Grama
Nandagudi Hobli
39) Sri Devaraj S/o Chowdappa
Aged about 35 years
r/At Govindapura
Jadigenahlli Hobli
40) Sri Narayanappa S/o Late
Thimmarayappa
Aged about 60 years
r/At Govindapura
Jadigenahalli Hobli
41) Sri Lakshman Singh S/o Heera
Singh
-8-
Crl. Misc. No.5989/2022
Aged about 62 years
r/At Sametanahalli
42) Sri Sonnappa S/o Late Krishnappa
Aged about 60 years
r/At Sametanahalli Grama
43) Sri Gajendra @ Gaja S/o Late
Ramachandra @ Kotwal Ramachandra
Aged about 28 years
r/At K Mallasandra Grama
44) Sri Ramesh S/o Ramaswamy
Aged about 30 years
r/At K Mallasandra Grama
Kasaba Hobli
45) Sri Srinivas
r/At K Mallasandra grama
Kasaba Hobli
46) Sri K C Suresh S/o Chandrappa
Aged about 40 years
r/A Koraluru Grama
Kasaba Hobli
47) Sri Mahesh S/o Bachchegowda
r/At Koraluru Grama
Kasaba Hobli
Hosakote Taluk, Bengaluru Rural
48) Sri Chandrashekar S/o Gopal
r/At Koraluru Grama
49) Sri Ramachandra @ Rajappa @
-9-
Crl. Misc. No.5989/2022
Kharge
S/o Dodda Hanumappa
Aged about 48 years
r/At K Mallasandra Grama
50) Sri Murali S/o Kantaraju
Aged about 29 years
r/At Kodihalli Grama
Jadigenahalli Hobli
51) Sri Manjuanth S/o Yallappa
Aged about 35 years
r/At Kodihalli Grama
Jadigenahalli Hobli
52) Sri Nagesh @ SLV Nagesh
S/o Narayanaswamappa
Aged about 35 years
r/At Behind Bridge
Nandagudi Hobli
53) Sri Srinivasa Murthy S/o
Subbarayappa
Aged about 42 years
r/At Poojaramanahalli Grama
Nandagudi Hobli, Hosakote Taluk
54) Sri Nagaraj N S/o Narasimhappa
Aged about 46 years
r/At Bhimakanahalli Grama
55) Ravi Raj S/o Muniraju
Aged about 31 years
r/At Halasahalli Grama
Kasaba Hobli
– 10 –
Crl. Misc. No.5989/2022
56) Sridhar S/o Kempanna
Aged about 25 years
r/At Kannoorahalli,
Kasaba Hobli
57) Sri Munishamanna S/o Chikka
Aliyappa
Aged about 52 years
r/At Kannoorahalli
Kasaba Hobli
58) Sri K B Krishna @ KEB Krishna
S/o Byrappa
Aged about 49 years
r/At Kannoorahalli
Kasaba Hobli
59) Sri Venkatesh S/o Nanjappa
Aged about 45 years
r/At Chinnagara Grama
Jadigenahalli Hobli
60) Sri Manjunath S/o Venkatappa
Aged about 47 years
r/At Chinnagara Grama
Jadigenahalli Hobli
61) Sri Narayana Swamy S/o
Gopalappa
Aged about 28 years
r/At Tavatahalli Grama, Jadigenahalli
Hobli
62) Sri Muniyappa S/o Kunta
– 11 –
Crl. Misc. No.5989/2022
Chinnappayya
Aged about 35 years
r/At Tavatahalli Grama
Jadigenahalli Hobli
63) Sri Anand K S/o Kempanna
Aged about 32 years
r/At Attivatta Grama
Jadigenahalli Hobli
64) Sri Srinivas S/o Narayanappa
Aged about 45 years
r/At Naduvinapura Grama
Nandagudi Hobli
65) Sri Shivakumar Munishamegowda
Aged about 50 years
r/At Naduvinapura Grama
Nandagudi Hobli
66) Sri Nithin S/o Nanjegowda
Aged about 32 years
r/At N Hosahalli Grama
Nandagudi Hobli
67) Rajashekar Gowda S/o Late
Venkataramana Gowda
Aged about 49 years
r/At Teneuru Grama
Sulibele Hobli
68) Sri Gopal S/o late Muniyappa
Aged about 50 years
r/At Appasandra J
adigendahalli Hobli
– 12 –
Crl. Misc. No.5989/2022
69) Sri Venkateshappa S/o Late
Narayanappa
Aged about 48 years
r/At Appasandra
Jadigendahalli Hobli
70) A C Venkatesh S/o Chinnappayya
Aged about 42 years
r/At Appasandra
Jadigendahalli Hobli
71) Sri Subbaiah S/o
Chikkavenkataramanappa
Aged about 40 years
r/At Alagondanahalli
Jadigendahalli Hobli
72) Sri Manju S/o Surappa
Aged about 40 years
r/At Gangapura
Nandagudi Hobli
73) Sri Gopal S/o Narappa
Aged about 40 years
r/At Giddanahalli
Nandagudi Hobli
74) Sri Muniraju S/o Kempanna
Aged about 40 years
r/At Karahalli
Nandagudi Hobli
75) Sri Anil Kumar S/o Krishnappa
Aged about 32 years
– 13 –
Crl. Misc. No.5989/2022
r/At Haleooru, Nandagudi Hobli,
76) Sri Anand S/o A.Chinnarayappa
Aged about 38 years
R/o T.Agrahara, Sulibele Hobli,
77) Sri Devaraju S/o Krishnappa
Aged about 40 years
r/At Yelachahalli Grama
Nandagudi Hobli,
78) Sri Balakrishna S/o Venkatesh
Aged about 42 years
r/At Vaddahalli Grama
Nandagudi Hobli,
79) Sri Venkatesh S/o late Govindappa
Aged about 42 yrs
r/At Doddakoratti Grama,
Nandagudi Hobli,
80) Sri Rama Murthy S/o T.Krishnappa
Aged about 45 years
r/At Mugabala Grama,
81) Sri Mahesh S/o Channa Mariyappa
Aged about 35 years
r/At Satyaganahalli Grama,
82) Sri B Nagaraj S/o Late Dyavaiah
Aged about 52 years
r/At Tavarekere Grama
Nandagudi Hobli,
83) Sri D.T.Venkatesh S/o
– 14 –
Crl. Misc. No.5989/2022
Thimmarayappa
Aged about 50 years
r/At Dodda Aralagre Grama
Near Haalitamma Arasanahalli
Sulibele Hobli,
84) Sri Vasanth Kumar R @ Vasant
(Sharath Bachegowda’s P.A)
S/o late Ramakrishnappa
Aged about 28 years
R/At Bodanahosahalli Grama,
Anugondanahalli Hobli,
85) Sri Syed Ista S/o Syed Rafeeq Shah
Aged about 27 years
r/At Medimallasandra Grama
Anugondanahalli Hobli,
86) Sri Baaji @ Akbar Ali Khan
S/o Khalil Khan
Aged about 54 years
r/At Giddappanahalli
Sulibelehalli Hobli,
87) Sri Mujamil S/o Ibrahim Saabi
Aged about 42 years
r/At Giddappanahalli,
Sulibele Hobli,
88) Sri L.M.Sudarshan S/o Muniyappa
Aged about 30 years
r/At Lakkondanahalli Grama
Kasaba Hobli,
– 15 –
Crl. Misc. No.5989/2022
89) Sri Rakesh S/o Umesh
Aged about 30 years
r/At Vivekananda Nagara,
III Cross,
All are from Hosakote, Hosakote Taluk,
Bengaluru Rural District-562 114
(Sri Subramanya M. Advocate for
petitioners)
V/s
RESPONDENT:
1. The State of Karnataka by Inspector
Hosakote Police
Hosakote Town
Bengaluru Rural District
(By learned Public Prosecutor)
2. Sri Lakshmikantha
PC 1451, Hosakote Police station
Bengaluru Rural District
3. Smt. Mubarak
WPC 999
Hosakote Police Station
Bengaluru Rural District
4. Mrs. Sunitha Bannad
WPC 1631
Hosakote Police Station
Bengaluru Rural District
5. Sri Ningappa B.Sakri
DySP, Hosakote Circle
Hosakote Police Station
Bengaluru Rural District
– 16 –
Crl. Misc. No.5989/2022
ORDER
This petition is filed by the petitioners under Sec.438 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure (‘Cr.P.C.’ for short) seeking
anticipatory bail apprehending their arrest in Cr.No.212/2019
registered by the respondent No.1 police for the offences
punishable under Sec.143, 147, 188, 353, 354, 332, 427 R/w Sec.
149 of IPC.
2.

In the petition, it is contended that the accused No.2
B.V.Byregowda is in public service for decades. He contested the
Councilor elections and he hails from a family that is known for its
political and social service and his uncle Sri B.N.Bachegowda, has
been an MLA of Hosakote Town several terms and has served as
Minister
on
several
occasions,
his
cousin,
Mr.Sharath
Bachegowda, contested last MLA elections as BJP Candidate and
lost by a narrow margin. The accused have challenged the FIR and
complaint in WP No.27139/2022 and Hon’ble High Court of
Karnataka had granted the stay to the said FIR and Complaint and
in the mean time, the police have filed charge sheet and added
other petitioners in to the crime. Thereafter, Hon’ble High Court of
Karnataka by is final order dated 14.02.2022 partly allowed the
– 17 –
Crl. Misc. No.5989/2022
writ petition and Section 188 of IPC has been quashed with liberty
to file discharge application. In the mean time, the case was
transferred from Prl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Hosakote to the
Special Court i.e., XLII ACMM Court, Bengaluru and case is
renumbered as CC No.10195/2022. The accused are no way
connected to this case and the accused were not at the spot and
they have been falsely implicated by the police and they are
permanent residents of above address and they hail from
respectable family and they are ready to abide by the conditions
that may be imposed by this Court and prayed for granting
anticipatory bail.
3.

After filing of this petition, the learned counsel for
petitioners / accused persons filed application to implead the
victims and said application came to be allowed by this Court. The
victims are none other than the police officials and they were
arraigned as respondents No.2 to 5.
4.

Thereafter, this Court issued notice to the respondent
No.1 and the victims/police officials arraigned as respondents No.2
to 5. The respondents No.2 to 5 have not appeared before the
Court. Learned Public Prosecutor filed objections to the above
– 18 –
Crl. Misc. No.5989/2022
petition and contended that if the anticipatory bail is granted, the
petitioners may commit serious offences and they may cause
trouble to the complainant and they may abscond and they may
commit similar offences and threaten the witnesses and hence,
prayed for dismissal of the bail application.
5.

Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the
petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor on the bail petition.
6.

The following points arise for my determination:
1) Whether the petitioners have made out
sufficient grounds for granting of anticipatory
bail in their favour as sought for ?
2) What order?

7.

After hearing the argument of both the parties and on
considering the relevant materials on record, my findings on the
above points are as hereunder:
Point No.1
: In the Affirmative
Point No.2
: As per final order
for the following:
REASONS
8.

Point No.1: Respondent No.1 Hosakote Police have
registered a case in Cr.No.212/2019 for the offences punishable
– 19 –
Crl. Misc. No.5989/2022
under Sec.143, 147, 188, 353, 354, 332, 427 R/w Sec. 149 of IPC
on the basis of written complaint lodged by Sri V.D.Shivaraj, CPI,
Hosakote Circle, Hosakote Police Station. In the complaint, it is
alleged that on 15.6.2019, there was inauguration of New Bus
Terminal at Hosakote Town and therefore, police personnel were
deployed for security and around 11.15 a.m., a group of 100 to 150
members headed by BJP leaders such as Mr.Sharath Bachegowda,
Mr.Byregowda, Mr.Doddahulluru Manjunath, without permission
and without giving a notice, formed unlawful assembly at the said
inaugural function and barged towards the stage by pushing the
barricades put up and violated the orders of Senior Police
Officials, Tahasildar and Taluk Magistrate who were present at the
place. It is alleged that they were chanting “Modi, Modi’ and other
pro-BJP Slogans and obstructed public servants in performing their
duties. It is further alleged that the said accused broke chairs,
tables, flower pots amongst other things that were arranged for the
occasion and allegedly demanded that the programme should not
be conducted at any cost and continued to create nuisance for
about an hour. Thereafter, the police personnel lathi charged on the
mob in order to disperse them. During the course of dispersal,
– 20 –
Crl. Misc. No.5989/2022
several police personnel including Dy.S.P. Mr.Ningappa.B., Lady
police Ms. Mubarak, lady PC Sunita Bannad, P.C. Lakshmikanth
and 3-4 other personnel got injured in the process.
9.

The present petition is moved by the petitioners who
are arraigned as accused in the case seeking anticipatory bail
apprehending their arrest in the above case on the ground that they
have not committed any offence alleged against them, they have
been falsely implicated by the police, they hail from respectable
family and they have good reputation in the society and there is no
apprehension of they fleeing away from justice and they are ready
to abide by the conditions that may be imposed by this Court and
to offer solvent surety for their release and hence, prayed for
granting anticipatory bail.
10. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently
argued that the petitioners are entitled for anticipatory bail and the
offences alleged are not punishable with death or imprisonment for
life and the petitioners are ready to abide by the conditions that
may be imposed by this Court and investigation is over and charge
sheet is already filed by the respondent police and hence, prayed to
allow the petition.

– 21 –
Crl. Misc. No.5989/2022
11. Learned Public Prosecutor vehemently argued that
there is no apprehension of arrest and the trial Court has issued
only summons for the appearance of the accused. But instead of
receiving summons and appearing before the Court, they have
filed present petition seeking anticipatory bail, which is not
maintainable either in law or on facts and hence, prayed for
dismissal of the petition.
12. Before discussing the case on merits, it would be
worthwhile to refer to the following decisions:
(a) Decision reported in “ILR 2003 KAR 3985” in the case
of “Venkatachalaiah and others Vs. State of Karnataka by
Kadugodi Police, Bengaluru and others”, wherein Hon’ble High
Court of Karnataka has held as hereunder:
“It is crystal clear that the power under Section 438 of
Cr.P.C. to grant anticipatory bail is of an extraordinary character
in as much as the bail (under Section 439 Cr.P.C.) can be granted
only after the arrest, whereas an order of anticipatory bail is to
be granted before a person is arrested. It is of a wider amplitude.
The legislature in its wisdom has chosen not to impose any
sort or checks, restrictions and impediments in the way of the
Courts to grant the relief of anticipatory bail in the case where
the Courts come to the conclusion that it is a fit case for them to
do so. They will be free to do so without any hindrance.

– 22 –
Crl. Misc. No.5989/2022
It is clear from the proposal of the law commission that
though initially it thought of imposing certain checks and
restrictions on the power of the Court to grant Anticipatory bail,
however, subsequently on giving a careful consideration to the
facts and circumstances dropped the said idea and left it
completely to the discretion and wisdom of the Courts. The law
commission did not do so because it reposed confidence on the
Courts, as the power is well being given only to Superior Courts
like the Court of Sessions or the High Court. Further more,
according to the Law Commission, in case certain fetters,
restraints and checks were put, in that eventually the very
purpose of the granting of the powers was likely to be defeated.
It is amply clear that the legislature in its wisdom thought
it fit that it is not proper to impose any condition on the power
of the courts to grant anticipatory bail. As such in our view
would it be improper to read into the section something which is
not proper? It is well settled principle of law that while
interpreting a provision, the Court has to interpret it as it is and
not as it ought to be or as the Court thinks it should be.
The filing of a charge sheet and the issuance of warrant are
certainly the grounds which make the person not only to believe
that he would be arrested, but also he can move the Courts under
Section 438(1) Cr.P.C.
In regard to anticipatory bail, if the proposed accusation
appears to stem not from motives of furthering the ends of
justice but from some other ulterior motive, the object being to
injure and humiliate the applicant by having him arrested, a
direction for the release of the applicant on bail in the event of
his arrest would generally be made and on the other hand, if it
appears on considering the antecedents of the applicant that
taking advantage of the order of anticipatory bail he will free
from justice, such an order would not be made.

– 23 –
Crl. Misc. No.5989/2022
In so far as the relevancy of Section 438(3) Cr.P.C., is
concerned, in our view, the same is not connected with the
powers under sub-section (1) of Section 438 and it makes only a
provision for a situation only after anticipatory bail is granted
under Sec.438(1). As such it is to be held that sub-section (3) of
Section 438 Cr.P.C. does not in any manner restrict the power of
the Court to grant anticipatory bail, but on the other hand it only
contains the procedural aspect that it is necessary to give effect
to the order of an anticipatory bail passed under sub-Section (1)
of Section 438 and the manner in which it would be given effect
to.
That the filing of charge sheet by the police does not put
an end to the power of Court to grant anticipatory bail under
Sec.438(1) Cr.P.C. Therefore, the view taken by the learned
Single Judge in Dr.Ebenezer’s case is not a good law.
In so far as the case where the accused appears once
before the Court and thereafter on account of his absence on any
later date warrant is issued by the Court for the deliberate
absence is concerned, the remedy of anticipatory bail under
Sec.438 Cr.P.C. is not available to such person.
This takes us to the next question as to whether on an
issuance of warrant by the Magistrate, can a person approach the
Court under Section 438(1) Cr.P.C. We would like to state that in
the normal course where warrant is issued in pursuance of filing
charge-sheet or issuance of summons and non-appearance of the
party, the remedy under Section 438(1) Cr.P.C. is available.
However, we would like to emphasis that where in a criminal
proceeding a party has already appeared once or more than one
date and thereafter does not appear in the Court, the Court in
such circumstances issues non-bailable warrant and the said
warrant issued is in view of the defaulting conduct on the part of
the accused and we are of the view that in such cases a petitioner
– 24 –
Crl. Misc. No.5989/2022
cannot invoke the jurisdiction of the Court under Section
438(1) Cr.P.C. and he is bound to obey the Court order or
warrant by first appearing before the Court and than by
satisfying the Court as to the sufficient cause for his absence,
pray for bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C.”
(b) Decision reported in “1997 CRI.L.J. 961” in the case of
“P.V.Narasimha Rao Vs. State (CBI)”, wherein Hon’ble Delhi
High Court has held as hereunder:
“Cr.P.C., Sec.438 – Anticipatory bail – Application for –
Maintainability – Case where summons only have been issued
against accused person – Application for maintainability – Case
where summons only have been issued against accused person –
Application for anticipatory bail, even in such case is
maintainable.”
(c) Decision reported in “AIR 2021 Supreme Court 4154”
in the case of “Aman Preet Singh Vs. CBI through Director”,
wherein Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has held as hereunder:
“6. Learned counsel for the appellant has brought
to our attention to the proceedings recorded on 26.08.2021
before the Magistrate to submit that the highhandedness of the
respondent is
apparent
from
the
fact
that
the
public
prosecutor, despite these orders from this Court, sought to plead
that the appellant had not been allowed any bail, non bailable
warrants had been issued against him, the direction of this Court
for the appellant not to be arrested did not mean that he could not
be sent to judicial custody and since this Court observed that he
– 25 –
Crl. Misc. No.5989/2022
could attend virtually till physical hearing started, which had by
then resumed, he should be sent to judicial custody. We may only
note all these submissions are completely inappropriate
indefensible. Neither did the learned
Additional Solicitor
General seek to contend except stating that those are
submissions.

only
We expect a public prosecutor to be conscious
of the legal position and
before
and
fair
while
making
submissions
the Court. We say no more as at least the Chief
Judicial Magistrate understood the order clearly and thus did not
agree with the submission of the public prosecutor.
7. No counter affidavit
respondent,CBI
despite
has
opportunity
been filed
granted,
Additional Solicitor General on the basis of
SOP
by the
but learned
seeks
to
submit that the appellant was required to appear physically
in Court. She does not seriously oppose the bail application.
10. In so far as the present case is concerned and the
general principles under Section 170 Cr.P.C.,the most apposite
observations are in sub-para (v) of the High Court judgment in
the context of an accused in a non-bailable offence whose
custody was not required during the period of investigation.
In such a scenario, it is appropriate that the accused is released
on bail as the circumstances of his having not been arrested
during investigation or not being produced in custody is itself
sufficient to entitle him to be released on bail.
11. The rationale has been succinctly set out that if a
person has been enlarged and free for many years and has not
even been arrested during investigation, to suddenly direct his
arrest and to be incarcerated merely because charge sheet has
been filed would be contrary to the governing principles for
grant of bail. We could not agree more with this.”
– 26 –
Crl. Misc. No.5989/2022
(d) Decision reported in “(2003) 8 SCC 77” in the case of
“Bharat Chaudhary and another Vs. State of Bihar and
another”, wherein Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has held as
hereunder:
“7. From the perusal of this part of Section 438 of the Crl. P.C.,
we find no restriction in regard to exercise of this power in a
suitable case either by the Court of Sessions, High Court or this
Court even when cognizance is taken or charge sheet is filed.
The object of Section 438 is to prevent undue harassment of the
accused persons by pre-trial arrest and detention. The fact, that
a Court has either taken cognizance of the complaint or the
investigating agency has filed a charge sheet, would not by
itself, in our opinion, prevent the concerned courts from
granting anticipatory bail in appropriate cases. The gravity of
the offence is an important factor to be taken into consideration
while granting such anticipatory bail so also the need for
custodial interrogation, but these are only factors that must be
borne in mind by the concerned courts while entertaining a
petition for grant of anticipatory bail and the fact of taking
cognizance or filing of charge sheet cannot by themselves be
construed as a prohibition against the grant of anticipatory bail.
In our opinion, the courts i.e. the Court of Sessions, High Court
or this Court has the necessary power vested in them to grant
anticipatory bail in non-bailable offences under Section 438 of
the Crl. P.C. even when cognizance is taken or charge sheet is
filed provided the facts of the case require the Court to do so.
11. We respectfully agree with the observations of this
Court in the said case that the duration of anticipatory bail
– 27 –
Crl. Misc. No.5989/2022
should be normally limited till the trial court has the necessary
material before it to pass such orders and it thinks fit on the
material available before it. That is only a restriction in regard
to blanket anticipatory bail for an unspecified period. This
judgment in our opinion does not support the extreme argument
addressed on behalf of the learned counsel for the respondentState that the courts specified in Section 438 of the Crl.P.C. are
denuded of their power under the said Section where either the
cognizance is taken by the concerned court or charge sheet is
filed before the appropriate Court. As stated above this would
only amount to defeat the very object for which Section
438 was introduced in the Crl.P.C. in the year 1973.”
13. In this case, the investigation is over and charge sheet
has been filed against the accused and the accused are not required
for custodial interrogation and the offences alleged against the
accused are not punishable with death or imprisonment for life.
The question before this Court is whether anticipatory bail may be
granted in the case of issuance of summons to the accused for
appearance. The decisions cited above are clear that the application
for anticipatory bail is maintainable in the case where summons
only being issued against accused person and it is also settled
principle of law that anticipatory bail is maintainable even in the
case of filing of charge sheet. In the recent decision of Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India in the case of ‘Aman Preeth Sigh Vs. CBI’,
– 28 –
Crl. Misc. No.5989/2022
it is held that the rationale has been succinctly set out that if a
person has been enlarged and free for many years and has not been
been arrested during investigation, to suddenly direct his arrest and
to be incarcerated merely because charge sheet has been filed
would be contrary to the governing principles for grant of bail.
Hence, this is a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. However, in this
case, the learned counsel for the petitioners has not filed vakalath.
On perusal of cause title of the petition as well as charge sheet, it is
found that the names of some of the petitioners do not tally with
the names mentioned in the charge sheet and some petitioners have
not mentioned their father name and their age. However, the
petitioners are entitled for anticipatory bail. It is for the police to
verify the names, father names, age and address of the petitioners
before releasing them on bail as per this order and make
corrections wherever necessary. The only apprehension of the
prosecution is that if anticipatory bail is granted, the petitioners
may abscond and
tamper the prosecution witnesses. The
apprehension of prosecution can be overcome by imposing certain
stringent conditions. Accordingly, I answer point No.1 in the
Affirmative.

– 29 –
Crl. Misc. No.5989/2022
14. Point No.2: In view of my findings on point No.1, I
proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
The petition filed by the petitioners under
Sec.438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is hereby
allowed.
The petitioners are ordered to be released on bail
on executing personal bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees
Fifty Thousand only) each with one surety for the like
sum in the event of their arrest by the respondent
police in Cr.No.212/2019 subject to the following
conditions:
1. The petitioners shall surrender before the
Investigating Officer within two weeks from
today and on such surrender, they shall be
arrested
in
Cr.No.212/2019
by
the
respondent police and thereafter be released
on bail subject to execution of bonds as
aforesaid and on verifying their names,
father names, age and address by obtaining
address proof documents.
2. The petitioners shall not abscond or destroy
the evidence or threaten the witnesses.

– 30 –
Crl. Misc. No.5989/2022
3. They shall appear before the police as and
when directed.
(Dictated to the Judgment writer, transcribed by him, revised and corrected
by me and then pronounced in the Open Court on this the 18th day of July, 2022)
(B. Jayantha Kumar)
LXXXI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru City (CCH-82)
(Special Court exclusively to deal with criminal cases
related to elected former and sitting MPs/ MLAs in the
State of Karnataka)
B JAYANTHA
KUMAR
Digitally signed by B
JAYANTHA KUMAR
Date: 2022.07.19
10:49:01 +0530