KABC010016092023
IN THE COURT OF THE LX ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS
JUDGE, BENGALURU (CCH 61)
:Present :
Sri Narashimsa.M.V., B.Com., LL.B.,
LX Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru.
Dated: This the 23rd day of January 2023
: Crl.Misc.No. 514/2023:
PETITIONER:-
1. Tejas
S/o C. Purushotham Reddy,
Aged about 27 years
2. Pratibha
W/o C. Purushotham Reddy
Aged about 45 years,
Both are R/at No.29/1,
17th E Main Road,
5th Block, Rajajinagar,
Bengaluru 560 010.
(Rep by Sri. Prakash M H , Adv)
V/s
RESPONDENT :
The State of Karnataka
By: Channammanakere Achukattu P.S.
Bengaluru.
(Rep. by: Public Prosecutor)
2
Crl.Misc.No.514/2023
ORDER
Accused Nos.2 and 3 in Channammanakere Achukattu Police
Station Crime No. 281/2022 have filed this application under Sec.
438 of Cr.P.C for grant of anticipatory bail.
2. Brief facts of the case as forthcoming from bail application
is as under :
First informant is M.Ramu, a builder,
he is running his
business under the name and style M/s R R Enterprises.

First
informant had entered into a Joint Development Agreement with
accused No.1 to 3 in respect of land bearing Sy. No.83/1, 83/2 of
Arakere village, said Joint Development Agreement was registered
in the office of Sub-registrar, Jayanagar, (JP Nagar), Bengaluru, built
up area was agreed to be shared in the proportion of 62% to
developer and 38% to land owner. Roshan Platinum Apartment
project was completed in the year 2018, occupancy certificate could
not be obtained from BBMP. In so far as flat No. 314 is concerned
accused Nos.4 to 6 are purchasers, in the year 2021 they filed a
complaint before RERA authority against
first informant and
accused No.1 to 3. In first information, it is alleged that on 3.2.2022,
first informant secured documents through e-mail produced by
3
Crl.Misc.No.514/2023
accused No.4 to 6 before RERA authority and learnt that accused
No.1 to 3 have executed a sale agreement dated 4.4.2017,
in
respect of flat No.314, , whereunder, signature of first informant has
been forged, accused No.1 to 3 have agreed to sell flat for
Rs.70,20,000/- on the basis of said agreement, accused No.4 to 6
have taken a loan of Rs.1,08,00,000/- from Syndicate Bank, in the
said agreement possession of flat is agreed to be delivered in the
year 2017, but, project was not yet completed on that date, RERA
authority has passed an order directing first informant and accused
Nos. 1 to 3 to pay Rs.37,80,000/- towards interest for delayed
hading over of possession.
3. Petitioners/accused Nos.2 &3 have urged the following
grounds :
The allegations made in first information is totally unfounded
as the intention of de-facto complainant could be easily made out,
that it is a counter blast against accused Nos. 3 to 6 who have
approached RERA seeking various reliefs on account of default
committed by de-facto complainant. These petitioners along with
accused No.1 have entered into joint development agreement with
first informant for development of 2 Acres 4 guntas of land. Since,
4
Crl.Misc.No.514/2023
it is owner’s share, concurrence of developer is not at all required.
As like that even for sale agreements which are executed by the
builder, concurrence of these petitioners is also not required.
Accused No.3 to 6 have got signature of builder and it is just a
formality and there is no authority given for him to make a signature
on the said sale agreement.

Petitioners are innocents of the
offences alleged and the agreement was validly executed. Offences
are not punishable with death or life imprisonment and looking into
history of the case, will provide sufficient surety. Respondent police
are making hectic attempts to arrest the petitioners, if they are
arrested it will lead to humiliation and cause undue hardship to them.
4. Prosecution has filed objections to bail application along
with Memo of instruction given by Investigating Officer, copy of Case
Diary is also enclosed.

In
objection public prosecutor has
reiterated the averments made in first information.

It is stated that
there are no grounds for granting anticipatory bail to petitioners,
grounds urged in the petition are not at all true. If petitioners are
granted anticipatory bail, they will abscond from the jurisdiction of
this Court, threaten the witness and destruct the evidence collected
against them. Hence prayed for rejection of bail.

5
Crl.Misc.No.514/2023
5. Heard the learned Advocate for petitioners and the learned
Public Prosecutor.
6. The point that arise for consideration is :
(1) Whether Anticipatory bail application filed by
accused No.2 and 3 in Channammanakere
Achhukattu Police Station Crime No. 281/2022
deserves to be allowed ?
7. My finding to the above point is in the Affirmative, for the
following :REASONS
8.

Point No.1:
Along with bail application, police notice
issued under Section 41(a) of Cr P C dated 12.1.2023 is furnished,
copies of Joint Development Agreement dated 2.8.2013, copy of
registered General Power of Attorney dated 2.8.2013, copy of the
partition deed dated 8.12.2014 entered into between accused No.1
to 3 are furnished.

Sum and substance of the first information is
that signature of first informant has been forged
in the alleged
agreement to sell dated 4.4.2017.
9. Even according to first informant accused Nos. 4 to 6 filed
complaint before RERA authority in the year 2021, first informant
secured copies of the documents produced by accused Nos.4 to 6
6
Crl.Misc.No.514/2023
before RERA on 3.2.2022. Thus, the date of knowledge to first
informant is 3.2.2022, first information is lodged on 25.11.2022. It
is necessary to note that there is a backdrop of litigation pending
before RERA authority, said authority has passed an order directing
first informant and accused Nos. 1 to 3 to pay interest of
Rs.37,80,000/-.
10.

Whether first informant is trying to avoid implementation
of orders passed by RERA authority by filing first information is to
be ascertained in a full fledged trial.

Prima-facie it appears that
transaction is civil in nature, criminal texture cannot be allowed to be
given to litigation which is a prima-facie civil in nature. Further, to
what extent and how the agreement to sell dated 4.4.2017 in respect
of flat bearing No. 314, affects right, title, interest and enjoyment of
68% of the built up area by the builder (first informant) is also a
matter which is civil in nature.

Agreement to sell dated 4.4.2017,
appears to be a written instrument, copies of which are available
before RERA and also Bank, where accused Nos. 4 to 6 have
obtained loan, it cannot be destructed or efffaced to any extent.
Taking into consideration that the offence alleged against accused
No.1 are not punishable with death or life imprisonment,
7
Crl.Misc.No.514/2023
apprehension of the prosecution can be met by imposing conditions.
Hence, I answer the above point in the Affirmative and proceed to
pass the following :
ORDER
Anticipatory Bail application filed by Petitioners in
Channammanakere Achukattu Police Station Crime No.
281/2022 is hereby allowed. Petitioners/Accused No.2
& 3 shall be enlarged on bail in the event of their arrest
subject to the following :
CONDITIONS
1. Accused Nos.2 & 3/petitioners shall execute
personal bond for Rs 50,000/- each with one surety.
2. Petitioners/ Accused Nos.2 & 3 shall not
tamper with
the prosecution witness or hamper the
investigation process in any manner.
3. Petitioners/ Accused Nos.2 & 3 shall attend
before the learned Magistrate on all dates of hearing.
5. Petitioners/ Accused Nos.2 & 3 shall not leave
the jurisdiction of Trial Court without prior permission.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and typed by him, after corrections,
pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the 23rd day of January 2023).

(NARASHIMSA.M.V.)
LX Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru