KABC010088692024
IN THE COURT OF THE LXII ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS
JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY [CCH.63]
Dated: This the 6 th day of April, 2024
Present: Sri. A. EARANNA, M.Com., L.L.M.,
LXII Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru City.
Crl.Misc.No. 3141/2024
Petitioner
Mr. Sudhakar R
Aged about 46 years
S/o Sri. R. Raja Gopal Naidu
R/at No.14, 4th Cross, 5th Main
Near Kammavari committee hostel
Near SSM School
Thyagarajanagara
Bengaluru-560 028
(By Prasanna Kumar B T – Adv.).
Vs.

Respondent:
State by Jayanagar
Police station,
Bengaluru
Rep. by Public Prosecutor.

2
Crl. Misc No. 3141/2024
OR D E R
The petition is filed by the petitioner/accused under
Section 438 of Cr.P.C for an order of anticipatory bail.
2.

On the strength of complaint the Jayanagar
police have registered the case in Crime No. 111/2024 for
the offences punishable under Sections 120B, 384, 409,
420, 468 of I.P.C. pending before the learned 4 th Addl. Chief
Metropolitan Magistrate at Bengaluru.
3.

In the bail petition it is contended that he is
innocent of the alleged offences and has not committed the
any offences. The respondent police have falsely implicated
the petitioner in the case on hand, on the basis of false
complaint filed by the complainant. The petitioner has roots
in the society. The offences are not punishable with death
or imprisonment for life. Petitioner is ready to furnish the
surety to release him on bail. On these grounds, the
petitioner prays to allow the bail petition.
4.

Whereas, the learned Public Prosecutor filed the
objection contending that present bail petition is not
maintainable, same is liable to be dismissed.

If the
petitioner is granted with anticipatory bail, the petitioner
may threaten the prosecution witnesses and he may destroy
the prosecution evidence or he may commit the similar kind
3
Crl. Misc No. 3141/2024
of offences and the possibility of petitioner fleeing away from
justice cannot be ruled out. Inter alia, on these grounds,
pray to dismiss the bail petition.
5.

Heard both sides. Perused the record.

6.

Following points arise for consideration of this
Court:
1. Whether the petitioner is made out
grounds to enlarge him on anticipatory
bail under Section 438 of Cr.P.C.?
2.
7.

What Order?
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:
R E A S ON S
8.

Point No.1:
The counsel for the petitioner
argued that petitioner has not at all committed any
offences, falsely implicated the petitioner.
offences
are
imprisonment.

not
punishable
with
The alleged
death
or
life
The petitioner is ready to abide by any
conditions that may be imposed by the court and he is
4
Crl. Misc No. 3141/2024
ready to execute the bond as directed by the Court.
Therefore, he prays to allow the bail petition.
9.

The
learned
Public
Prosecutor
argued
the
petitioner has cheated the public and committed alleged
offences. If the petitioner is enlarged on bail, then there is
chances of he may tamper and hamper the prosecution
witnesses, he may threat the complainant and other
witnesses and he also abscond from the case.

He may
commit similar offences, along with other grounds she
prays to dismiss the bail petition.
10.

On perusal of the prosecution papers that one
Vijayaraghava Marathe filed complaint on 22.03.2024.
Based on the complaint respondent police have registered
the case in crime No. 111/2024 for the offences punishable
under sections 120B, 384, 409, 420, 468 of I.P.C. As per
the complaint, on 14.03.2024 complainant’s daughter had
gone to shopping in Jayanagar 4th Block at 1.30 pm., in her
white coloured Honda Dio Vehicle bearing registration
No.KA-05-HG 5009 and on 15.03.2024 complainant’s elder
daughter went to some work to Jayanagar 4 th Block in
another white coloured Honda Dio two wheeler bearing
registration No.Ka-03-HS-4253 and the parking staff who
was supposed to charge Rs.5/- for less than a hour from
complainant daughter’s charged Rs.20/- and later on
5
Crl. Misc No. 3141/2024
17.03.2024 at about 4.00pm with intention to expose the
illegal charges collected by the Parking contractor and his
accomplices, the complainant being the State President of
Bribery Free Karnataka Forum along with a team of about
12 members of the KRS Party, who is the State Secretary
reached the place and checked their 2-3 vehicles parked at
the straw collection area, allowing cars and two-wheelers to
park in unleased space (i.e., on foothpaths) and extorting
money
illegally.

Similarly,
giving
tampered
receipts,
collecting 4 times the money and captured the same by
video and it is visible. Therefore, contractor Mr. Sudhakar,
BBMP Assistant Revenue Officer (Marketing). Mrs. Radha
and Sudhakar have hired more than 10 workers to commit
this crime and entrusted the people to obtain more money
by falsifying the documents of the receipt machine and
sought for appropriate legal action against them who have
caused criminal breach of trust to the Government and
cheating to the complainant. Hence the complaint.
10.
offences
On going through the records the alleged
are
not
punishable
with
death
or
life
imprisonment. However on perusal of the I.O. report it does
not disclose that the petitioner involved in other similar
cases. While considering the bail, Court ought to see the
nature and gravity of the offence. If the petitioner is
arrested his personal liberty will be curtailed. The petitioner
6
Crl. Misc No. 3141/2024
is permanent resident of the address mentioned in the
cause title of the petition. Considering the reasons assigned
by the petitioner this Court is of the opinion that the
petitioner is entitled for bail.
11. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Central
Bureau of investigation Vs. V.Vijay Sai Reddy 2013 (7)
SCALE 15 was pleased to express that; “28. While granting
bail, the court has to keep in mind the nature of
accusation, the nature of evidence in support thereof, the
severity of the punishment which conviction will entail, the
character of the accused, circumstances which are peculiar
to the accused, reasonable possibility of securing the
presence
of
the
accused
at
the
trial,
reasonable
apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with, the
larger interests of the public/ state and other similar
consideration. It has also to be kept in mind that for the
purpose of granting bail, the legislature has used the words
‘reasonable grounds for believing” instead of “the evidence”
which means the court dealing with the grant of bail can
only satisfy it as to whether there is a genuine case against
the accused and
that the prosecution will be able to
produce prima facie evidence in support of the charge. It is
not
expected,
at
this
stage,
to
have
the
evidence
establishing the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable
doubt.

7
12.

Crl. Misc No. 3141/2024
Further it is settled law by the catena of
decisions that “the accused is to be presumed as innocent
until guilt is proved by the prosecution in full-fledged trial by
discharging its burden of proof. Until then, it is not just and
proper to put the accused in jail as a measurement of
punishment in the pre-trail stage.” It is settled position of
law by the Catena of decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court
and various High Courts that “securing the presence of the
accused for trial and protection of witnesses form tampering
are the main considerations at the stage of granting bail.”
13. The petitioner claims to be the permanent resident
of address shown in the cause title of the bail petition. It is
urged that the petitioner is ready and willing to furnish
surety to the satisfaction of this Court to ensure his
attendance before the I.O and the Court and they are also
ready to abide by any conditions imposed by Court. As
such, possibility of the abscondance of petitioner is too
remote. However, the alleged offences are not punishable
with death or life imprisonment and triable by the Court of
Magistrate.
14. The apprehension and interest of the prosecution
that the petitioner may tamper with the prosecution
witnesses, flee away from justice can be taken and
safeguarded by imposing some suitable conditions. Hence
8
Crl. Misc No. 3141/2024
by considering all these aspects, I am of the opinion that
the petitioner is entitled for bail and accordingly, I answer
the above Point No.1 in the Affirmative.
15. Point No.2: In view of my findings on Point No.1,
I proceed to pass the following:
OR D E R
The anticipatory bail petition filed by
the
petitioner
under
Section
438
of
Cr.P.C is hereby allowed.
The
directed
respondent
police
to
the
enlarge
are
hereby
petitioner
on
anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest in
Crime No. 111/2024 of respondent Police
Station for the offences punishable under
Sections 120B, 384, 409, 420, 468 of I.P.C.
on
execution
of
personal
bond
for
Rs.1,00,000/- with one surety for the like
sum on the following conditions:
1.The petitioner shall join investigation
and co-operate with I.O for investigation.
2. The petitioner shall not tamper with
the prosecution evidence or influence the
prosecution witnesses directly or indirectly
in any manner.

9
Crl. Misc No. 3141/2024
3. The petitioner shall not indulge with
offence of like nature.
4. The petitioner shall appear before the
respondent police station every 2 nd Saturday
at 10.00 am to 6.00 PM before the station to
mark his attendance.
5. In case, if the petitioner violate any of
the
above
prosecution
mentioned
is
at
conditions,
liberty
to
move
the
an
application in such cases for cancellation of
bail.
(Dictated to the Stenographer directly on computer typed by her,
corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in Open Court on this
the 6 th day of April, 2024).

(A. EARANNA)
LXII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru City.