KABC010160692022
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 13th day of July2022.
Crl. Misc.No.5986/2022
PETITIONER :
Smt.Vatsala.N.
W/o.Gangadhar Rao,
36 years,
R/at.No.1151, 12th Main Road,
9th Block, BDA Layout,
Nagarabhavi,
Bengaluru North,
Bengaluru.
(By Sri.L.G., Advocate)
.Vs.

RESPONDENT :
State by
Koramangala Police,
Bengaluru.
(By learned Public Prosecutor)
ORDER ON BAIL PETITION
This is successive bail petition under Section 438 of
Cr.P.C., filed by the learned counsel for the petitioner
Crl.Misc.No.5986/2022
2
seeking anticipatory bail to the petitioner in the event
of her arrest in Crime No.105/2022 of the respondentKoramangala Police Station, Bengaluru registered for
the offences punishable under Sections 419, 420, 465,
468 and 471 r/w. Section 34 of IPC, pending on the file
of learned XLI Addl. C.M.M., Bengaluru.
2.

The brief facts of the case are as under:
The complainant had filed a private complaint under
Section 200 of Cr.P.C., in PCR No.4307/2021 against the
accused and on reference under Section 156(3) of
Cr.P.C., the respondent police have registered the case
in Crime No.105/2022 against the accused for the
alleged offences.
The complainant is IDFC First Bank Ltd., (Erstwhile
Capital First Ltd.,) registered under Companies Act 2013
having its Registered Office at Mumbai and one of its
Branch Office at Koramangala, Bengaluru.
It is alleged in the complaint that the accused No.1
along with accused No.2 had availed loan with the
complainant bank and thereafter failed in making
payment of EMIs.

During internal verification, it was
found that the accused No.1 has shifted his house from
his given residential address. Later it is lerant that the
accused
along
with
some
third
parties
had
impersonated the actual seller and registered the
property in his name. The actual seller Sri.Ramanjaneya
Crl.Misc.No.5986/2022
3
had stated that he had not sold the property to the said
accused and not received any sale consideration
amount.

On
post
necessary
approvals
and
documentation, the said loan was sanctioned to the
accused and the disbursement for the transaction was
made in favour of Ramanjaneya, Mahila Co-operative
Bank Ltd.,
vide Account No.00310010007149.

The
actual seller Sri.Ramanjaneya had told that he had not
holding any account in the said bank and thereafter it is
suspected that the said Mahila Co-operative Bank
account is a dummy account intended to defraud the
bank. The accused along with third party had cheated
the bank knowing fully well about the fraud and caused
loss to the bank, where third party impersonated as
seller and did the registration. The actual seller denied
any sale transaction and registration of the said
property. The complainant had suspected that the
accused along with third party has been collided and
defrauded
means.

the bank by availing loan in fraudulent
The complainant has also suspected the
involvement of the internal credit manager for not
following the policy and process laid down by the bank
and has proposed loan applications without visiting
properties or if visited, has intentionally proposed loan
application in collusion with third party or accused.
3.

The petitioner has been arraigned as accused No.2
In the bail petition, the petitioner has contended that
Crl.Misc.No.5986/2022
4
she is innocent and has not committed any offences.
The petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case.
There are no reasonable grounds to believe that the
petitioner is guilty of the alleged offences. No specific
allegations are made against this petitioner either in the
report or in the FIR.

The petitioner’s husband i.e.,
accused No.1 has purchased the property i.e., Flat
No.103,
Ground
floor
of
the
building
from
one
Ramanjineya by virtue of Sale Deed and the petitioner
stood as co-obligant of the said property by mortgaging
the title deeds of the property before the complainant
bank and obtained mortgage loan in respect of the
above said property. After getting the Sale Deed, the
petitioner and her husband are regularly making
payments of EMI.

The entire allegation made in the
complaint is civil in nature. The respondent police are
making hectic efforts to arrest the petitioner and hence,
the petitioner has got reasonable apprehension of their
arrest. There is delay in lodging the report.

The
offences
not
alleged
against
the
petitioner
are
punishable with either death or imprisonment for life.
The petitioner hails from respectable families, having
deep roots in the society. The petitioner has no any bad
antecedents. The petitioner is permanent resident of
the address shown in the cause title and hence, there is
no chance of her absconding.

The petitioner is ready
and willing to abide by the terms and conditions those
Crl.Misc.No.5986/2022
5
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.
4.

The learned Public Prosecutor has filed objections
and contended that the investigation is not yet
completed.

There are prima-facie materials as to the
commission of alleged offences. The petitioner has
committed the alleged offences. The petitioner has not
assigned any genuine reasons for granting bail. If the
petitioner is enlarged on bail, she may threaten the
prosecution
witnesses,
destroy
the
prosecution
evidence and hamper the investigation by fleeing away
from justice and may commit similar offences. Hence,
sought for rejection of the bail petition.
5.

Heard.

6.

The points raised for determination are as under:
1. Whether the petitioner has made out
sufficient grounds to enlarge her on
anticipatory bail ?

2. What Order ?
7.

My findings to the above points are as under:
Crl.Misc.No.5986/2022
6
POINT No.1 : Negative,
POINT No.2 : As per the final order,
for the following:
REASONS
8.

POINT No.1 : The case of the prosecution is that
the petitioner in collusion with other accused in order to
cheat the informant’s bank has committed cheating by
impersonation, created forged documents and used the
same as if genuine. The same has been denied by the
learned counsel for petitioner.
9.

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the
petitioner that the petitioner is innocent and has not
committed any offences. The petitioner has been falsely
implicated in this case.

The accused No.1 has been
enlarged on bail by the learned Magistrate. Further, the
accused No.3 has also got anticipatory bail order and
hence, souht for bail on the ground of parity. Prays to
allow the bail petition.
10.

The learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that
there are direct allegations made against this petitioner
in the commission of alleged offences. The petitioner
colluding
with
other
accused
have
committed
impersonation, created forged documents and used the
same as if genuine and
received the loan by
mortgaging the property from the informant’s bank and
cheated the bank.

The earlier bail petition filed by the
Crl.Misc.No.5986/2022
7
petitioner was dismissed by this court and there are no
changed circumstances in this bail petition to grant bail.
Prays to dismiss the bail petition.
11.

The facts that the alleged cheating, impersonation,
creation of forged documents,
used the same as if
genuine and obtained the loan from the informant’s
bank by mortgaging the property are all to be proved in
full fledged trial with authenticated testimony of the
prosecution witnesses.

There are direct allegations
against this petitioner in the commission of alleged
offences.
petitioner
There
in
is
the
prima-facie
commission
case
of
against
offences.

the
The
Investigation is under progress. Hence, it is not a fit
case to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail.

A
free hand to be given to the Investigating Officer to
investigate the matter.
12.

There are certain circumstances observed by
Their Lordships of Hon’ble Apex Court of India in
Crl.Appeal No.1175/2018. The observations therein are
considered while
passing
reason adverting to the
the
order with sufficient
facts and circumstances of
this case. It is observed by Their Lordships that the
prima-facie case against the accused, the gravity of
allegations, position and status of the accused, the
likelihood of accused fleeing away from justice and
repeating the offence, the possibility of tampering the
Crl.Misc.No.5986/2022
8
witnesses and obstructing the courts as well as the
criminal antecedents of the accused are the certain
factors, that should be taken into account by the court.
Therefore, the likelihood of tampering the witnesses
and destroy the evidence are all considered while
answer the point for consideration. At this stage, the
apprehension of prosecution as stated in the objections
may not be ruled out. Further, the earlier bail petition
filed by the petitioner in Crl.Misc.No.4840/2022 was
dismissed by this court vide order dated:31.05.2022.
There are no changed circumstances in this successive
bail petition. Therefore, the bail petition deserves to be
dismissed. Accordingly, I answer the Point No.1 in the
Negative.
13.

POINT No.2 :
My finding on this point is as per
the following :
ORDER
The bail petition filed by the petitioner under Section
438 Cr.P.C., is dismissed.
(Dictated to the Judgment-writer on computer, corrected, signed and then
pronounced by me in the open court on this the 13th day of July 2022)
(KASHIM CHURIKHAN)
LXVII Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge,
BENGALURU.