KABC010089932024
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 22nd day of April 2024
Crl.Misc.No.3188/2024
Petitioner:
Yashwant G.

S/o Gangadhar Char G.H.
Aged about 24 years,
R/at No.1274 E22(2),
LG Ramanna Layout,
Lavakusha Nagar,
Laggere, Bengaluru North,
Bengaluru.
(By Sri. R.S., Advocate)
-VsRespondent:
State by Subramanyapura Police,
Bengaluru.
(By learned Public Prosecutor)
ORDER ON BAIL PETITION
This is bail petition u/s.438 of Cr.P.C, filed by the
learned counsel for the petitioner seeking anticipatory
bail to the petitioner in the event of his arrest in
Cr.No.368/2023 of the respondent- Subramanyapura
2
Crl.Misc.No.3188/2024
Police Station, Bengaluru registered for the offences
punishable u/s.420 of IPC and Sec.66(C) & 66(D) of
Information Technology Act, pending on the file of
learned XLV A.C.M.M, Bengaluru.
2.

The brief facts of the case are as under:
The informant has lodged the report to the police
stating that he is working as Technical Manager in M/s.
Collabera Digital, Bengaluru. That on 20.09.2023, at
about 7.30 p.m., he received a call from unknown and
informed that a parcel booked in the name of informant
has been held up by Mumbai Customs Officials and
thereafter he forwarded the call to other person,
claiming to be a Mumbai Police Officer and has shared
a copy of FIR against the complainant and told that
there are 36 illegal accounts were operating in the
name of complainant. Again, on 21.09.2023, the said
unknown person informed that his original account has
to be verified and asked the informant to bear its
expenses. Hence, the complainant has transferred in all
Rs.6,50,430/- from his bank account and also from the
bank accounts of his parents and friends to the bank
account number given by the unknown person and
thus, cheated the informant.
3.

In the bail petition, the petitioner has contended
that he is innocent and has not committed any
offences. The petitioner has been falsely implicated in
3
Crl.Misc.No.3188/2024
this case. The petitioner has got valid and tenable
defence. The complainant and petitioner are strangers
to each other and there is no any transaction between
them. There are no reasonable grounds to believe that
the petitioner is guilty of the alleged offences. The
offences
alleged
against
the
petitioner
are
not
punishable with either death or imprisonment for life
and they are triable by the Court of Magistrate. The
petitioner is permanent resident of the address shown
in the cause title and hence, there is no chance of his
absconding. The petitioner hails from respectable
family and having deep roots in the society. The
petitioner has no bad antecedents. The respondent
police have issued notice u/s.41-A of Cr.P.C., to the
petitioner and hence, the petitioner has got reasonable
apprehension of his arrest. The petitioner is ready and
willing to abide by 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.
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 not
assigned any genuine reasons for granting bail. The
petitioner is absconding from the date of commission of
4
Crl.Misc.No.3188/2024
alleged offences. At this stage, if the petitioner is
enlarged on bail, he 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 petitioner has made out
sufficient grounds to enlarge him on
anticipatory 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:
REASONS
8.

Point No.1: The case of the prosecution is that
the accused falsely pretending that bank account of
informant needs verification and for that the accused
got transferred lakh of rupees from the bank account of
informant and also from his parents and friends bank
accounts and thus, cheated the informant. The same
has been denied by the learned counsel for the
petitioner.
9.

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the
petitioner that the name of the petitioner does not find
5
Crl.Misc.No.3188/2024
place in FIR. There are three transactions between
petitioner and accused. The notice u/s.41-A of Cr.P.C.,
is issued and hence, the petitioner has got reasonable
apprehension of his arrest. Since all the connected
materials have been produced, custodial interrogation
of the petitioner is not required. Prays to allow the bail
petition.
10.

The learned learned Public Prosecutor has argued
that amount has been credited to the account of
petitioner and hence, there is prima-facie case against
him. he is involved in the case. At this stage, if the
petitioner is released on bail, he may abscond and may
involve in similar case and cheat the other public. Prays
to reject the anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

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. No name of the petitioner
does find place either in the report or in the FIR.
Hence, the involvement of the petitioner in the
commission of alleged offences is to be proved in the
course of trial. Further, the offences alleged against the
petitioner are not punishable with either death or
imprisonment for life. The offences alleged against the
petitioner are exclusively triable by the Court of
6
Crl.Misc.No.3188/2024
Magistrate. The apprehension of the petitioner as to
likelihood
of
his
arrest
is
well
founded
as
the
respondent police have issued police notice to the
petitioner. The petitioner is ready to abide the bail
conditions and ready to furnish surety for his due
appearance before the Investigating Officer as well as
before
the
court
for
the
purpose
of
trial.

The
apprehension of prosecution could be dealt with by
imposing some conditions. Therefore, the petitioner is
entitled for anticipatory bail. Accordingly, I answer the
Point No.1 in the affirmative.
12.

Point No.2: My finding on this point is as per the
following:
ORDER
The bail petition filed by the petitioner
u/s.438 Cr.P.C., is hereby allowed, subject
to the following conditions:
1. The petitioner is ordered to be released
on bail in the event of his arrest in
Cr.No.368/2023
of
the
respondentSubramanyapura Police Station Bengaluru
on executing his self bond for a sum of
Rs.1,00,000/- along with the surety for
like sum;
[
2. The petitioner shall appear before the
Investigating Officer within 15 days from
the date of this order and assist the
Investigating Officer as and when required
for the purpose of investigation;
7
Crl.Misc.No.3188/2024
3. The petitioner shall appear before the
trial court on all the dates of hearing;
4. The petitioner shall not tamper with the
prosecution witnesses;
5. The petitioner 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 22nd day of April 2024)
(KASHIM CHURIKHAN)
LXVII Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru.

Digitally signed by
KASHIM
KASHIM
MOHADDINSAHEB
MOHADDINSAHEB CHURIKHAN
CHURIKHAN
Date: 2024.04.24
11:35:14 +0530