1 [Link].
12565/2022
KABC010345232022
IN THE COURT OF THE LVI ADDL. CITY CIVIL &
SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU (CCH 57)
: Present :
[Link], [Link]., LL.B,
LVI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru.
Dated this the 5 th day of January, 2023.
[Link].N o.12565/2022
PETITIONER 1. Rajesh G
S/o Govindaraj Shanivarmappa
Aged abut 26 years
R/at No.12, Sathya Nilaya
4th Cross, [Link]
Murugesh Palya,
Bengaluru
(By [Link]., Adv)
V/s
RESPONDENT 1. State of Karnataka
By [Link] police station,
Bengaluru.
(Rep. by Public Prosecutor)
2 [Link].12565/2022
ORDER
This petition is filed by the petitioner under Section 438
of Cr.P.C. for grant of bail in the event of his arrest in
[Link].618/2022 by the respondent police for the offences
punishable under Sec.384, 420, 504, 507 and 120(B) of IPC
and Sec.4 of Karnataka Prohibition of Charging of Exorbitant
Interest Act and Sec.66(C), 66(D) and 67 of Information
Technology Act pending on the file of I Addl. Chief
Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru.
2. The petitioner has sought for anticipatory bail on the
grounds that, he is a law abiding citizen. He is a permanent
residnt of Bengaluru. He is ready to co-operate with
investigation officer. He has been falsely implicated the
offences are non bailable and not punishable with death or
imprisonment for life. The accused No.1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 9, 10, 11,
12, 14 to 21 are already granted bail. He is a sole earning
member of his family. He is ready to furnish surety. He is
ready and willing to abide by the conditions that may be
imposed.
3 [Link].12565/2022
3. The Prosecution has filed statement of objection
narrating the facts of the case. Further the prosecution
papers prima facie discloses the involvement of the petitioner.
If the petitioner is granted the relief he may flee from justice.
He may not co-operate with the investigation. He may commit
similar nature of offence. He may tamper with the prosecution
witnesses and evidence. Therefore, sought for dismissal of
the petition.
4. Heard the arguments of both sides.
5. The following points arise for my determination:-
1. Whether the petitioner is entitled for
anticipatory bail as provided under Section
438 of Cr.P.C.?
2. What order?
6. My findings on the above said points are as
follows;
Point No.1 : In the Affirmative
Point No.2 : As per final order, for the
following :-
4 [Link].12565/2022
R E A S ON S
7. Point No.1:- As could be seen from the
prosecution papers, it reveals that, the accused persons
created a company by name Barnox Technologies Pvt Ltd and
appointed Raghunandan, Venkatesh Kirthi and Divyashree
Kattimani as a director to the company and also appointed
300 employees at Golden Enclave and instructed them about
the instant loan app, teli calling, customer data management
and S0, S1, S2 and S3. They have carried a business of giving
loan through online instant loan, shine app by collecting
adhar card, pan card, bank account details, e-mail address,
selfi photo, address and contact list from the customers and
gave Rs.2,000/- to 8,000- as loan and which will be recovered
within 7 days. If the customers have not able to return the
money the accused persons by S0 team have sent the
remander massage to the customers, S1 team has send
remander massage and called the customers to return the
loan amount with higher interest, S2 team have searched the
contact number of the relative and friends of customers and
called them to return the loan amount, S3 team have abused
5 [Link].12565/2022
the customers and their relatives and friends and also sent
edited photo in obscene manner and recover the amount. The
accused persons knowing fully have cheated the complainant
and other customers by giving instant loan, by threatening
and abused them in a filthy language and also send edited
photos only with an intention to gain illegal money.
8. It is contended by the petitioner that, the offences
alleged are neither punishable with death or life
imprisonment. He has not committed any offence as alleged.
He undertakes to appear before the court and co-operate with
the instigation. The apprehension of the prosecution is that if
the petitioner is granted the relief, he may not co-operate with
the investigation. He may abscond. He may threaten the
complainant and tamper with the prosecution witnesses can
be met with by imposing conditions. The other accused
persons are already granted bail. Hence this petitioner is also
entitled for bail on the ground of parity. Considering the facts
and circumstances of the case and other accused persons
have already granted bail, this court is of the opinion that, the
6 [Link].12565/2022
petitioner is entitled for the relief claimed. Accordingly the
point is answered in the Affirmative.
10. Point No.2: In view of my findings on point No.1,
I proceed to pass the following:-
ORDER
The petition filed by the petitioner under
Section 438 of Cr.P.C., is hereby allowed.
The petitioner is ordered to be released on
bail in the event of his arrest in [Link].618/2022
by the respondent police for the offences
punishable under Sec.384, 420, 504, 507 and
120(B) of IPC and Sec.4 of Karnataka Prohibition
of Charging of Exorbitant Interest Act and
Sec.66(C), 66(D) and 67 of Information Technology
Act pending on the file of I Addl. Chief
Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, subject to
following conditions:-
1) The petitioner shall execute personal-bond
for Rs.1,00,000/- with two sureties for the
like-sum to the satisfaction of the learned
Magistrate.
2) The petitioner shall not directly or
indirectly make any inducement, threat or
promise to any person acquainted with
7 [Link].12565/2022
the facts of the case or tamper with the
evidence.
3) The petitioner shall appear before the court
on all future hearing dates unless
exempted by the court for any genuine
cause.
4) The petitioner shall not leave the
jurisdiction of the court without prior
permission of the court till conclusion of
the trial.
5) The petitioner shall not indulge in
committing any offence.
6) The petitioner shall produce the proof of
her residential address.
If violation of any conditions will
amounts to cancellation of bail
automatically.
(Dictated to the Stenographer directly on computer, corrected and
then pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the 5 th Day of January,
2023)
([Link])
LVI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru
8 [Link].12565/2022
9 [Link].12565/2022
Order pronounced in the open
court (vide separate order)
ORDER
The petition filed by the
petitioner under Section 438
of Cr.P.C., is hereby allowed.
The petitioner is ordered to
be released on bail in the
event of his arrest in
[Link].618/2022 by the
respondent police for the
offences punishable under
Sec.384, 420, 504, 507 and
120(B) of IPC and Sec.4 of
Karnataka Prohibition of
Charging of Exorbitant
Interest Act and Sec.66(C),
66(D) and 67 of Information
Technology Act pending on
the file of I Addl. Chief
Metropolitan Magistrate,
Bengaluru, subject to
following conditions:-
1) The petitioner shall
10 [Link].12565/2022
execute personal-bond for
Rs.1,00,000/- with two
sureties for the like-sum to
the satisfaction of the learned
Magistrate.
2) The petitioner shall not
directly or indirectly make
any inducement, threat or
promise to any person
acquainted with the facts of
the case or tamper with the
evidence.
3) The petitioner shall
appear before the court on all
future hearing dates unless
exempted by the court for any
genuine cause.
4) The petitioner shall not
leave the jurisdiction of the
court without prior
permission of the court till
conclusion of the trial.
5) The petitioner shall not
indulge in committing any
offence.
6) The petitioner shall
produce the proof of her
residential address.
If violation of any conditions
will amounts to cancellation
of bail automatically.
LVI Addl. City Civil &
Sessions Judge, Bengaluru
11 [Link].12565/2022