KABC010084202024 IN THE COURT OF THE LXIII ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH-64) AT BENGALURU Dated this the 8th day of April 2024 : PRESENT : Sri.A.V.Patil, B.Com., LL.B., LXIII ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY. CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS NO.2970/2024 PETITIONER : Srinivas.V S/o Venkateshappa, Aged about 42 years, Proprietor, M/s Ahuja and Co., Residing at No.1, Mayura Nilaya, Srinivasanagara, Srinagara, Bengaluru. (By Sri.N.Uday Kumar, Advocate) – Vs – RESPONDENT : State of Andra Pradesh By CCS Police Station, Tirupathi, Tirupathi Urban (By Public Prosecutor) 2 Crl.Misc.No.2970/2024 O R D E R The petitioner has filed this petition u/s 438 of Cr.P.C., for release on bail in the event of his arrest in connection with a case registered in Cr.No.28/2022 of respondent Police Station for the offences punishable u/s 420, 406, 464, 467, 471 r/w 34 of IPC.

2. It is stated in the bail application that the

petitioner is innocent and has not committed any offences as alleged in the complaint. The complainant has alleged that the Company belonging to the petitioner was bogus one but the Company has got value audit tax registration certificate in Form No.7 and Income Tax Returns filed by the petitioner regarding the transaction and also the Commercial Tax Department having TIN No.29350678480 and issuing a Tax purchase invoice entries and also Income Tax Returns filed by the Company by the petitioner. This clearly indicates the Company belonging to the petitioner is original but not bogus. The petitioner never issued any invoices in the name of Mr.Komandur Elyavalli Koushik nor before sanctioning the amount, the complainant nor his staff have not enquired about the machines purchased by them or not, nor they have not verified 3 Crl.Misc.No.2970/2024 the invoices issued by the petitioner to Mr.Komandur Elyavalli Koushik. The petitioner is the Proprietor of M/ s Ahuja and Company and signing authority for invoices i.e., purchase, supply machines and the accused Mr.Komandur Elyavalli Koushik have created the bogus invoice in the name of the petitioner’s Company and signed the invoice he himself and submitted to the complainant Bank. The authorities of the Bank of India have not enquired about the invoices nor was signature found on the invoice. The case was registered on 21.06.2022 and the transaction took-place on 24.12.2013 i.e., after a lapse of 11 years and the respondent/Police are calling the petitioner on his mobile in the year 2024. The respondent/Police without issuing notice are trying to apprehend the petitioner. The petitioner is going to approach the concerned Court at Tirupati and the respondent are making hectic efforts to arrest him. The offences alleged against the petitioner are not punishable either with death or imprisonment for life and are triable by the Court of Magistrate. He is ready and willing to abide by the terms and conditions imposed while releasing him on bail. In view of registering of FIR, he apprehends his 4 Crl.Misc.No.2970/2024 arrest. Hence, prayed to grant anticipatory bail.

3. Initially the petition has been filed against the two

respondents. Later by filing the memo not pressed the petition against Hanumanth Nagar PS, Bengaluru.

4. The notice is issued to then respondent No.2 (Now

the sole respondent). The Advocate for petitioner has filed memo stating that the notice to respondent No.2 was sent through mail to the SP Tirupati on 27.03.2024.

5. Heard the arguments from learned Counsel for

petitioner. Perused the materials placed on record.

6. The points that arise for my consideration are:

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled for transit anticipatory bail as prayed in the application filed under Sec.438 of Cr.P.C.?

2. What order?

7. My answer to the above points are as follows:

Point No.1: In the affirmative Point No.2: As per final order for the following; R E A S O N S

8. Point No.1:- Sri.Mahesh.E, Senior Manager of

Bank of India, Tirupathi Branch, K.T.Road, Tirupathi, has filed the complaint before the respondent/Police on 5 Crl.Misc.No.2970/2024 21.06.2022 alleging that as per the guidelines issued by the Government of India, all the Banks have implemented CGTMSE Scheme to benefit the general public by giving loans for doing business. The 9 persons narrated in the complaint have approached the complainant Bank and applied for loan under the above said scheme claiming that they will establish manufacturing unit and they require financial assistance towards working capital and term loans. All the said persons submitted loan applications along with the quotations and MOU’s and advance receipts along with KYC documents. The complainant Bank sanctioned loan to all the 9 persons based on their applications and the enclosures attached to their applications. At Sl.No.1, the customer by name M/s Sumedha Industries was sanctioned a Term Loan to the tune of Rs.30 lakhs and cash credit facility to the tune of Rs.20 lakhs on 24.12.2013 totaling to Rs.50 lakhs by submitting quotations for machinery from M/s Ahuja and Co., for manufacturing of disposable pillow covers. Later, in the Bank inspection, it was found that M/s Ahuja and Company is a bogus entity. Hence, the quotation, MOU and advance receipts are all bogus 6 Crl.Misc.No.2970/2024 documents on which Rs.50 lakhs was siphoned by Mr.Komandur Elyavalli Koushik and money was remitted to Sumedha and other Companies. The borrowers furnished the fake quotations, advance receipts, fake MOU and other documents without establishing the units. With fraudulent intention dishonestly cheated the bank and thereby siphoned the public money and caused financial loss to have a wrongful gain by furnishing fabricated documents in connivance with others. CBI also investigated the matter. Hence, the complainant filed the complaint to take action against the persons narrated in the complaint. On the basis of the complaint, the FIR is registered for the aforesaid offences.

9. The petitioner has filed this petition praying for

transit anticipatory bail in Crime No.28/2022 of CCS, Tirupathi Police Station, Tirupathi. The petitioner claims that the case was registered on 21.06.2022 in respect of the transaction took-place on 24.12.2013. After lapse of 11 years, in the year 2024, the respondent/Police calling the petitioner on his mobile. No notice is received by the respondent/Police. The petitioner is going to approach the concerned Court at 7 Crl.Misc.No.2970/2024 Tirupathi. As the FIR is registered for non-bailable offences, respondent/Police are making hectic efforts to arrest the petitioner he has a serious apprehension of his arrest from the respondent/Police. The petitioner is no way connected to the offences alleged in the complaint.

10. The petitioner claims that he has not committed

any offences as alleged in the complaint and the allegations made in the complaint do not constitute the ingredients of the offences alleged in the complaint as against the petitioners. In support of his contention, the petitioner has produced the FIR registered in Crime No.28/2022 of CCS Police Station, Tirupathi, before this Court. The contents of the said FIR and the complaint go to show that the respondent/ Police have registered the said case against M/s Ahuja and Company and others. In Para-4 of the complaint, the allegations made that on inspection, complainant/Bank came to know that M/s Ahuja Company is a bogus entity. Hence, the quotation, MOU and Advance receipts are all bogus documents based on which Rs.55 lakhs was siphoned by Sri.K.Sivakumari of M/ Radha Rani Industries. On the basis of the said complaint FIR is 8 Crl.Misc.No.2970/2024 registered for the offence punishable u/s 420 of IPC. In view of referring the name of M/s Ahuja and Company in the complaint, the petitioner has reasonable apprehension of his arrest in Crime No.28/2022 of CCS Police Station, Tirupathi for the offence punishable u/s 420 of IPC which is a non-bailable.

11. The material on record discloses that the

allegations of cheating made against the petitioner in the FIR registered in Crime No.28/2022 of CCS Police Station, Tirupathi. The Tirupathi is located far distance from Bengaluru. Therefore, the petitioner may require reasonable time to appear before the concerned Court for seeking necessary relief. In the said circumstances it would be just and proper to give him protection by way of anticipatory bail for a limited period, so as to enable him to approach the competent Court for necessary relief.

12. It is material to note that this Court is considering

the prayer for issuing the transit anticipatory bail for a limited duration. Therefore, there is no necessity to touch the correctness of the allegations made by the complainant in the complaint. The filing of this petition by the petitioner clearly indicates that he has no 9 Crl.Misc.No.2970/2024 intention to abscond or run-away from the investigation. On the contrary it appears that the petitioner has filed this petition only with an apprehension of arrest by the respondent. The offence alleged in the complaint is triable by Court of Magistrate and is cognizable offence. As per the provisions of Cr.P.C. the I.O. may arrest the petitioner without warrant. Having regards to the facts and circumstances, in the opinion of this Court, it would be proper to direct the respondent that no coercive steps may be taken against the petitioner for the next three weeks, to enable him to approach the jurisdictional Court. For the foregoing reasons, I answered point No.1 in the affirmative.

13. Point No.2:- In view of my findings on Point No.1,

I proceed to pass the following; O R D E R The bail petition filed by petitioner u/s 438 of Cr.P.C is hereby allowed. In the event of his arrest by the I.O. in Crime No.28/2022 of CCS Police Station, Tirupathi, is directed to enlarge him on bail on executing his 10 Crl.Misc.No.2970/2024 personal bond for Rs.80,000/- with one surety for like sum subject to the condition that the petitioner is entitled for the benefit of this order for the period of three weeks from the date of passing of this order i.e., till 28.04.2024. It is made clear that notwithstanding this order of transit anticipatory bail does not in any manner limit or restricts the rights and duties of the Police or investigating agency, to investigate into the charges against the petitioner. (Dictated to the Stenographer Grade-I directly on Computer, typed by her, taken print out, corrected by me and then pronounced in the open Court on this the 8th day of April 2024) (A.V.PATIL) LXIII Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge (CCH-64), Bengaluru City.