KABC010015922023
IN THE COURT OF LXVII ADDL CITY CIVIL AND
SESSIONS JUDGE; BENGALURU CITY (CCH.No.68)
PRESENT
SRI.KASHIM CHURIKHAN.
B.A., LL.M.
LXVII ADDL CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE,
BENGALURU.
Dated this the 31st day of January 2023.
Crl. Misc.No.506/2023
PETITIONER :
Sri.Sooraj Raju,
S/o.K.Raju,
42 years,
R/at.No.1113, Tower-1,
Prestige Lakeside Habitat,
Gunjur Village,
Varthur Hubli,
Bengaluru.
(By Sri.T.S., Advocate)
.Vs.

RESPONDENT :
State by
Whitefield CEN Crime Police,
Bengaluru.
(By learned Public Prosecutor)
ORDER ON BAIL PETITION
This is bail petition under Section 438 of Cr.P.C., filed
Crl.Misc.No.506/2023
2
by the learned counsel for the petitioner seeking
anticipatory bail to the petitioner in the event of his
arrest
in
Whitefield
Crime
CEN
No.846/2022
Crime
Police
of
the
respondent-
Station,
Bengaluru
registered for the offences punishable under Section
420 of IPC and under Section 66 of Information
Technology Act, 2000, pending on the file of learned I
Addl. C.M.M., Bengaluru.
2.

The brief facts of the case are as under:
The informant has lodged the report to the police
stating that One97 Communication Ltd. Company is
rendering services of SMS. The accused proprietorship
concern by name Dnivog Solutions approached the
informant’s company for SMS service. In this regard,
the informant company has provided SMS connectivity
for the period of 3 months to the accused company. To
pay the charges, the accused issued two cheques of
Rs.50,00,000/- and one cheque for Rs.35,00,000/-. The
said cheques were bounced. It is alleged that the
accused
have
to
pay
SMS
service
charges
of
Rs.2,74,94,931/- to the informant. It is further alleged
that the accused got the service from the informant’s
company and did not pay the service charges and have
cheated by not paying the amount due.
3.

The petitioner has been arrayed as accused No.3.

In the bail petition, the petitioner has contended that
he is innocent and has not committed any offences.

Crl.Misc.No.506/2023
3
The petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case.
The petitioner has got valid and tenable defence. There
are
no
reasonable
grounds
to
believe
that
the
petitioner is guilty of the alleged offences. The
petitioner is not CEO for proprietorship concern belongs
to accused No.1. The accused No.2 in his capacity as
proprietor of Dnivog Solutions has issued cheques for
the payments due and payable by accused No.1
proprietorship concern.

The petitioner being accused
No.3 has nothing to do with the transaction between
the accused Nos.1, 2 & 4 and the informant’s company.
The petitioner was summoned by the accused No.2 to
mediate on behalf of the accused No.2 with the
informant.

No specific allegation is made against the
petitioner in the commission of alleged offence.

The
offences
not
alleged
against
the
petitioner
are
punishable with either death or imprisonment for life
and are exclusively triable by the Court of Magistrate.
The petitioner is permanent resident of the address
shown in the cause title and hence, there is no chance
of his absconding. The petitioner hails from respectable
family, having deep roots in the society. The petitioner
has no any bad antecedents. The informant colluding
with the respondent police, in order to harass the
petitioner, has foisted a false case against him.

The
respondent police are making hectic efforts to arrest
the petitioner and hence, the petitioner has got
Crl.Misc.No.506/2023
4
reasonable apprehension of his arrest. The petitioner is
ready and willing to abide by the terms and conditions
those going to be imposed by this court and ready to
offer
surety
to
the
satisfaction
of
the
court,
if
anticipatory bail is granted. Hence, sought for allowing
the bail petition.
4.

The learned Public Prosecutor has filed objections
and contended that the investigation is not yet
completed. There are prima-facie materials as to the
commission of alleged offences. The petitioner has not
assigned any genuine reasons for granting bail.

The
petitioner is absconding from the date of commission of
alleged offences.

At this stage, if the petitioner is
enlarged on bail, he may threaten the prosecution
witnesses,
destroy
the
prosecution
evidence
and
hamper the investigation by fleeing away from justice.
Hence, sought for rejection of the bail petition.
5.

Heard.

6.

The points raised for determination are as under:
1. Whether the petitioner has made out
sufficient grounds to enlarge him on
anticipatory bail ?
2. What Order ?

7.

My findings to the above points are as under:
POINT No.1 : Affirmative,
POINT No.2 : As per the final order,
for the following:
Crl.Misc.No.506/2023
5
REASONS
8.

POINT No.1 : The case of the prosecution is that
Dnivog
Solutions
Proprietorship
concern
got
SMS
service facility from the informant’s company for the
period of 3 months and they are due certain amount
and for payment of the amount, the cheques given by
the accused were bounced and not ready to pay the
service charges and thereby, cheated the informant’s
company. The same has been denied by the learned
counsel for the petitioner.
9.

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the
petitioner that the petitioner is innocent and has not
committed any offences. The petitioner has been
falsely implicated in this case. There is no inducement
made by the petitioner to enter into agreement. The
petitioner is not at all concern to the proprietorship
concern, he is only Mediator for the alleged transaction,
he has not involved in the commission of offence.
Prays to allow the bail petition.
10.

The
alleged facts are all to be proved in full
fledged trial with authenticated testimony of the
prosecution
witnesses.

That
apart,
securing
the
accused for the purpose of investigation and trial are
the criteria to grant bail. On perusal of the records, no
specific allegations made against the petitioner in the
commission of alleged offence. There is no materials
Crl.Misc.No.506/2023
6
placed on record to say that the petitioner is connected
to the Dnivog Solutions Pvt. Ltd. The offences alleged
against the petitioner are not punishable with either
death or imprisonment for life and are exclusively
triable by the Court of Magistrate.

The apprehension
of the petitioner as to likelihood of his arrest is well
founded. The petitioner has undertaken to abide by bail
conditions and ready
to furnish surety for his due
appearance before the Investigating Officer as well as
before the court for the purpose of trial. Under the
circumstances, the apprehension of prosecution could
be dealt with by imposing some conditions. Therefore,
the
petitioner
is
entitled
for
anticipatory
bail.

Accordingly, I answer the Point No.1 in the Affirmative.
11.

POINT No.2 : My finding on this point is as per
the following :
ORDER
The bail petition filed by the petitioner under Section
438
Cr.P.C.,
is
allowed,
subject
to
the
following
conditions.
(1) The petitioner is ordered to be released
on bail in the event of his arrest in Crime
No.846/2022
of
the
respondentWhitefield CEN Crime
Police Station
Bengaluru on executing his self bond for
a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- along with surety
for like sum ;
(2) The petitioner shall appear before the
Investigating Officer within 15 days from
Crl.Misc.No.506/2023
7
the date of this order and to assist him in
investigation as and when required ;
(3) The petitioner shall appear before the
trial court on all the dates of hearing ;
(4) The petitioner shall not tamper with the
prosecution witnesses;
(5) The petitioner shall not
committing any offences.

indulge
in
(Dictated to the Judgment-writer on computer, corrected, signed and then
pronounced by me in the open court on this the 31st day of January 2023)
(KASHIM CHURIKHAN)
LXVII Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge,
BENGALURU.