KABC010158692022
IN THE COURT OF THE LVI ADDL. CITY CIVIL &
SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU (CCH 57)
: Present :
Sri. T.Govindaiah, B.Com., LL.B.,
LVI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru.
Dated this the 16th Day of July, 2022.
Crl.Misc.No.5905/2022
PETITIONER
1. Sri.Srinivas K
Aged about 47 years
R/at No.3071/33,
10th Cross, C Block,
Gayatri Nagar,
Rajajinagar
Bengaluru 560 010
By Sri. Sudharshan Suresh, Adv)
V/s
RESPONDENT
State of Karnataka
By Madiwala Police Station,
Bengaluru.
(Rep. by: Public Prosecutor)
ORDER
This is a petition filed by the petitioner under Section
2
Crl.misc.No.5905/2022
438 of Cr.P.C. for bail in the event of his arrest by the
respondent police in Crime No.86/2022 for the offences
punishable under sections 419, 420, 465 and 468 read with
section 34 of IPC, on the file of 3 rd Additional Metropolitan
Magistrate, Bengaluru.
2.
The petitioner has sought for anticipatory bail on
the grounds that, the petitioner was desirous of purchasing a
property in Bengaluru and while making efforts towards the
same, one Mr.Raj Chandrashekar, who is a real estate broker,
was introduced to the petitioner. Consequently the real estate
broker showed the property belongs to Smt.A.M.Shanta and
complete the sale transaction. The petitioner paid required
sale consideration to Smt.A.M.Shanta and got executed a
registered
sale
deed
on
16.02.2022.
The
petitioner is
innocent. The alleged offences are not exclusively punishable
with death or life imprisonment. If the petitioner is arrested,
he will be subjected to indignities and humiliation at the
instance of the people who are inimically disposed towards
him. The petitioner having deep roots in the society and has
3
Crl.misc.No.5905/2022
his business. There is no possibility of the petitioner fleeing
from justice. He is a permanent resident of the address
mentioned in the cause title. He is ready and willing to abide
by any conditions that may be imposed. He is also ready to
furnish surety. He has no bad antecedents.
3.
The prosecutor has filed statement of objections
narrating the facts of the facts. Further the prosecution
papers prima facie discloses the involvement of the petitioner
in the alleged offences of impersonation along with other
accused persons. The investigation is in progress. At this
stage, if he is released on bail, he may tamper the documents
and prosecution witnesses and he may abscond from the
jurisdiction of the court. Then fair investigation cannot be
conducted. Hence, at this stage, this petitioner is not entitled
for anticipatory bail as prayed in this petition. Hence, he
requests to reject the petition in the ends of justice.
4.
In view of the aforesaid rival contentions, the
following points that would arise for my consideration are:
Crl.misc.No.5905/2022
4
1. Whether the petitioner is entitled for
anticipatory bail under section 438 of
Cr.P.C. as prayed for in this petition?
2. What Order?
5.
Heard arguments of both the sides and perused
the records.
6.
My finding to the above points are as follows:
Point No.1 : In the Negative
Point No.2 : As per the final order
for the following;
:REASONS:
7. POINT NO.1:
Based on the first information
initiated by the first informants J.Rajesh Shanmugavel,
Poornima Menon and Chithra Jagannathan, the respondent
police have registered this case in crime No.86/2022 for the
offences punishable under sections 419, 420, 465 and
468read
with
section
34
of
IPC and
send
FIR.
The
investigation is under progress. At this stage, this petitioner,
who is arrayed as accused No.1 has come up with this
petition seeking anticipatory bail on the major ground that
5
Crl.misc.No.5905/2022
absolutely there is no prma facie material to show that he is
involved in the alleged offences and he is not required for
custodial interrogation.
8.
On this back ground, on perusal of the entire
materials on record, prima facie which shows that, the
deceased A.M.Shantha, who is the absolute owner of the
property bearing No.114, situated at Koramangala 1st Stage.
She was unmarried. During her life time she had executed a
registered Will on 02.04.2011 in favour of her sisters children
i.e., the complainants. The said A.M.Shantha died on
09.01.2020. After the death of A.M.Shantha when these
complainants went to get change the katha of the property
based on the Will. But they were shocked and surprised the
property was standing in the name of one Srinivasa.K (A1) the
petitioner herein. When they enquired in the Sub Registrar’s
office, they came to know that on 16.02.2022, the above said
property has been got transfered to the name of petitioner
under a registered sale deed. All these accused with their
common intention, fraudulently created the documents and
6
Crl.misc.No.5905/2022
get the sale deed by impersonating the identity of late
A.M.Shantha. Hence, on perusal of the entire allegations
made in the complaint, there is prima facie material to show
that this accused No.3 is also involved in the alleged offences.
9.
No doubt, as submitted by the learned counsel for
the petitioner, this petitioner/accused No.1 was desirous of
purchasing a property in Bengaluru and while making efforts
towards the same, one Mr.Raj Chandrashekar, who is a real
estate broker, was introduced to the petitioner. Thereafter the
real estate broker showed the subjected property to the
petitioner as belongs to one Smt.A.M.Shanta. Subsequently
the petitioner completed the sale transaction and paid the
required sale consideration to Smt.A.M.Shanta and got
executed a registered sale deed on 16.02.2022 before Sub
Registrar, R.R.Nagar, Bengaluru.
10. There is sufficient materials on record to show that
this petitioner is also involved in the alleged offences, which is
a serious and heinous offence. The investigation is under
7
Crl.misc.No.5905/2022
progress. Hence, at this stage, if the petitioner is released on
bail, he may tamper the documents and threaten the
prosecution
witnesses
and he may abscond
from the
jurisdiction of the court. Then fair investigation cannot be
conducted.
11.
No doubt, the alleged offences are not punishable
with death or imprisonment for life and all the offences are
exclusively triable by the Learned Magistrate. But when there
is a serious allegation of impersonation of dead person for
wrongful gain, by creating documents and got transferred the
property by illegally. If this petitioner is released on
anticipatory bail at this stage, it will have impact on the
society. Moreover this petitioner is required for further
investigation.
Under
all
these
circumstances
and
also
considering the nature and gravity of the alleged offences, it is
not a fit case to extend the discretionary power in favour of
the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner has not made out any
sufficient grounds to entertain this petition and to enlarge
him on anticipatory bail. Therefore,the petition filed by the
8
Crl.misc.No.5905/2022
petitioner lacks merit and the same is deserves to be rejected.
In view of the above reasons, I answer the point No.1 in the
“Negative”.
12. POINT NO.2: In the result, for the reasons stated
above, I proceed to pass the following;
ORDER
The bail petition filed by the petitioner under
section 438 of Cr.P.C. is hereby rejected.
(Dictated to the stenographer directly on computer,corrected, signed and
then pronounced by me in the open court on this the 16 th day of July,
2022)
(T.Govindaiah)
LVI Addl. City Civil And Sessions
Judge Bengaluru City.