KABC010078572024 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 8th day of April 2024 Crl.Misc.No. 2811 /2024 Petitioners: 1. Suresh M, S/o Muniyappa, Aged about 56 years,

2. Srinivasa Murthy, S/o Muniyappa, Aged about 63 years,

Both are R/at No.28, Nagenahalli, Singanayakanahalli, Yelahanka New Town, Bengaluru -64. (By Sri. R.N, Adv.) -Vs- Respondent: State by Yalahanka New Town Police, Bengaluru. (By learned PP) ORDER ON BAIL PETITION The petitioners have filed bail petition u/s.438 of Cr.P.C., sought for the anticipatory bail in event of their arrest in C.C.No.28696/2023 (Cr.No.437/2023 of the 2 Crl.Misc.No.2811/2024 respondentYalahanka New Town Police Station), Bengaluru registered for the offences punishable u/s.427, 447 r/w Sec.34 of IPC, pending on the file of learned 30th A.C.M.M, Bengaluru.

2. The brief facts of the case are as under:

The informant has lodged report to the Police stating that Sy.No.53/2 is self-acquired property of his mother. They have put stone fencing to the boundary of said land on 24.10.2023 at 3.00 p.m. On the same day at 5.30 p.m. the accused have trespassed into their land and destroyed the stone boundary laid by the informant.

3. In the bail petition, the petitioners being accused

No.2 and 3 have contended that they are brothers and are permanent residents of address mentioned in the petition. They have valid and tenable defence. They came from respectable family. They are innocent and not having worldly knowledge. They are agriculturists and respectable persons in the society. The complainant created sale deed on the strength of unregistered GPA. The allegations made in the complaint are purely civil in nature. The alleged offences are not punishable with imprisonment for life or death. The petitioners are ready and willing to abide 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. 3 Crl.Misc.No.2811/2024

4. The learned Public Prosecutor has filed objections

and contended that the charge sheet reveals prima- facie materials as to the commission of alleged offences. The petitioners have not assigned any genuine reasons for granting bail. The petitioners are absconding from the date of commission of alleged offences. At this stage, if the petitioners are enlarged on anticipatory bail, they 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 petitioners have made out sufficient grounds to enlarge them on 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: R E A S O N S

8. Point No.1: The case of the prosecution is that

the accused have trespassed into the land of mother of informant and destroyed the boundary fencing stone laid to said land. The same has been denied by the learned counsel for petitioners. 4 Crl.Misc.No.2811/2024

9. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the

petitioners that since already charge sheet has been filed, the custodial interrogation of these petitioners is not required. False case has been registered against the petitioners. Hence, the learned counsel prays to allow the bail petition.

10. The learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that

there are prima-facie case against the petitioners. They have not made out any ground for granting of anticipatory bail to them. Therefore, prays to dismiss the bail petition.

11. 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. Hence, the involvement of the petitioners in the commission of alleged offences is to be proved in the course of trial. The offences alleged against the petitioners are not punishable with either death or imprisonment for life. The apprehension of the petitioners as to likelihood of their arrest by the respondent Police is well founded. The petitioners have undertaken to abide the bail conditions and ready to furnish surety for their due appearance before the Court. The apprehension of prosecution could be dealt with by imposing some conditions. Accordingly, I answer the Point No.1 in the affirmative. 5 Crl.Misc.No.2811/2024

12. P oint No.2 : In view of my findings on Point No.1

as above, I proceed to pass the following: O R D E R The bail petition filed by the petitioners u/s.438 of Cr.P.C, is allowed, subject to the following conditions:

1. The petitioners are ordered to be released on bail in the event of their arrest in C.C.No.28696/2023 (Cr.No.437/2023 of the respondentYalahanka New Town Police Station, Bengaluru) on executing their personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- each along with one surety for like sum;

2. The petitioners shall appear before the trial Court on all the hearing dates;

3. The petitioners shall not tamper with the prosecution witnesses;

4. The petitioners shall not indulge in committing any offences.

(Dictated to the Stenographer Grade-I directly on computer, corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in the open court on this the 8th day of April 2024) (Kashim Churikhan) LXVII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru. Digitally signed by KASHIM KASHIM MOHADDINSAHEB MOHADDINSAHEB CHURIKHAN CHURIKHAN Date: 2024.04.16 12:55:24 +0530