IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDL DISTRICT AND
SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT,
BENGALURU.
Present : Sri Hosamani Pundalik,
I Addl. District & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru.
Dated this the 7th day of June 2023
[Link]./1039/2023
Petitioners: 1).[Link] NAHATA,
D/[Link] Chand Nahata,
Aged about 43 years;
2).PRADEEP,
S/[Link],
Aged about 40 years;
3).[Link] NAHATA,
D/[Link] Chand Nahata,
Aged about 34 years;
4).ASISH,
S/[Link],
Aged about 34 years;
5).[Link],
D/[Link] Chand Nahata,
Aged about 40 years;
6).PRAKASH CHAND NAHATA,
S/[Link] Noratan Nahata,
Aged about 67 years;
All are R/at No.B1, 1301,
Gokulam Apartment,
Doddakkallasndra,
Bengaluru.
2 [Link]./1039/2023
[[Link]–[Link] Adv]
Vs
RESPONDENT :State of Karnataka by
SHO Kaggalipura Police Station,
Bengaluru Rural District.
[Reptd. by Public Prosecutor]
ORDERS
This is a petition filed by the petitioners under
Sec.438 of Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail in the
event of their arrest in [Link].209/2023 registered by the
Kaggalipura Police Station for the offences punishable
under Sections 354(B),506,509,504,447,323 r/w.149 of
IPC.
2. The case of the petitioners in brief is as
under:
That the petitioners are innocent and law abiding
citizen and have got deep root in the society and
petitioners never involved in any offences. The police
falsely implicated the petitioners at the behest of the
persons who are enimical towards the petitioners. The
petitioners are doing horticultural work. The alleged
offences are nonbailable in nature. The petitioners
respondent owners of the land in [Link].121 measuring
to an extent of 8 acre 20 guntas. The complainant/first
informant and his family members used to encroach and
illegally trespass into fenced property of the petitioners.
There is a civil dispute with regard to the boundaries
between informant/complainant and the petitioners. The
3 [Link]./1039/2023
petitioner Nos.1, 3 and 5 are females. The petitioner No.6
is aged about 67 years, petitioner Nos.2 and 5 are not in
the spot at the time of incident, petitioner No.3 called the
police and complainant and his family members removed
the fence by using JCBs and removed 20 fruit trees
stolen Rs.3,00,000/. The petitioners are residing at
Bengaluru. The petitioners are apprehension of arrest by
the respondent police. The petitioners are ready and
willing to furnish surety to the satisfaction of the Court
and also undertake to abide with the terms and
conditions to be imposed on them. Hence, the Petitioners
have prayed for grant of anticipatory bail in the event of
their arrest in the interests of justice.
3. Per contra, it is contended by the Learned
Public Prosecutor by filing objection that the petition
filed by the petitioners is not maintainable in the eye of
law. It is contended that as per the investigation and
records primafacie the petitioners have committed
offences alleged against them, which are serious in
nature. The petitioners have not made out reasonable
ground to enlarge them on bail. Hence, at this stage, if
the petitioners are released on bail they may tamper the
prosecution witnesses and there is possibility to abscond
and prayed for rejection of the petition.
4. Thereafter, I have heard the arguments
advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners and
that of the learned Public Prosecutor for the State.
4 [Link]./1039/2023
5. The points that would arise for my
consideration in this case are as under:
1. Whether the petitioners are entitled for
anticipatory bail as provided under
Section 438 of Cr.P.C. as prayed for?
2. What Order?
6. My findings to the above points are as under:
Point No.1 : In the Affirmative
Point No.2 : As per final order for the following:
REASONS
7. Point No.1: One Byrappa lodged first information
before the SHO of Kaggalipura Police Station on
21.5.2023 at about 11.30 a.m. in [Link].209/2023 for
the offences punishable under Section
354(B),506,509,504,447,323 r/w.149 of IPC., alleging
that on 20.5.2023 at about 7.00 a.m. himself alongwith
his family member were cultivating the property at that
time the accused persons alongwith their servants
committed criminal trespass by entering into his land
and assaulted to his wife and dragged her by holding her
saree and outraged her modesty and also insulted her
modesty and abused her in filthy language and
threatened for life threat and thereby punishable under
Sections 354(B),506,509,504,447,323 r/w.149 of IPC.
8. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted
that the petitioners are innocent and law abiding citizen
and have got deep root in the society and petitioners
5 [Link]./1039/2023
never involved in any offences. The police falsely
implicated the petitioners at the behest of the persons
who are enimical towards the petitioners. The petitioners
are doing horticultural work. The alleged offences are
nonbailable in nature. The petitioners respondent
owners of the land in [Link].121 measuring to an extent
of 8 acre 20 guntas. The complainant/first informant and
his family members used to encroach and illegally
trespass into fenced property of the petitioners. There is
a civil dispute with regard to the boundaries between
informant/complainant and the petitioners. The
petitioner Nos.1, 3 and 5 are females. The petitioner No.6
is aged about 67 years, petitioner Nos.2 and 5 are not in
the spot at the time of incident, petitioner No.3 called the
police and complainant and his family members removed
the fence by using JCBs and removed 20 fruit trees
stolen Rs.3,00,000/. The petitioners are residing at
Bengaluru. The petitioners are apprehension of arrest by
the respondent police. The petitioners are ready and
willing to furnish surety to the satisfaction of the Court
and also undertake to abide with the terms and
conditions to be imposed on them. Hence, the Petitioners
have prayed for grant of anticipatory bail in the event of
their arrest in the interests of justice.
9. Per contra, it is contended by the Learned
Public Prosecutor by filing objection that the petition filed
by the petitioners is not maintainable in the eye of law.
It is contended that as per the investigation and records
primafacie the petitioners have committed offences
6 [Link]./1039/2023
alleged against them, which are serious in nature. The
petitioners have not made out reasonable ground to
enlarge them on bail. Hence, at this stage, if the
petitioners are released on bail they may tamper the
prosecution witnesses and there is possibility to abscond
and prayed for rejection of the petition.
10. It is pertinent to note that the decision reported in
(2011) 1 SCC 694 in the case of Siddharam
Satlingappa Mhetre Vs. State of Maharashtra and
others, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in
para No.112 held as under:
“112. The following factors and parameters that
need to be taken into consideration while dealing
with anticipatory bail:
(a) .The nature and gravity of the accusation and
the exact role of the accused must be properly
comprehended before arrest is made;
(b) .The antecedents of the applicant including
the fact as to whether the accused previously
undergone imprisonment on conviction by a
court in respect of any cognizable offence;
(c) .The possibility of the applicant to flee from
justice;
(d) .The possibility of the accused's likelihood to
repeat similar or other offences;
(e) .Where the accusations have been made only
with the object of injuring or humiliating the
applicant by arresting him or her;
(f) .Impact of grant of anticipatory bail particularly
in cases of large magnitude affecting a very
large number of people;
(g) .The courts must evaluate the entire available
material against the accused very carefully.
The court must also clearly comprehend the
7 [Link]./1039/2023
exact role of the accused in the case. The
cases in which the accused is implicated with
the help of Sections 34 and 149 of the Penal
Code, 1860 the court should consider with
even greater care and caution, because over
implication in the cases is a matter of common
knowledge and concern;
(h) .While considering the prayer for grant of
anticipatory bail, a balance has to be struck
between two factors, namely, no prejudice
should be caused to free, fair and full
investigation, and there should be prevention
of harassment, humiliation and unjustified
detention of the accused;
(i) .The Court should consider reasonable
apprehension of tampering of the witness or
apprehension of threat to the complainant;
(j) .Frivolity in prosecution should always be
considered and it is only the element of
genuineness that shall have to be considered
in the matter of grant of bail and in the event
of there being some doubt as to the
genuineness of the prosecution, in the normal
course of events, the accused is entitled to an
order of bail.
11. It is pertinent to note that the offences alleged
against the petitioners are nonbailable in nature not
punishable with death or imprisonment for life. The
materials available on record indicate that they have
reasons to believe that they may be arrested for a non
bailable offences alleged against them. It is well settled
law that while granting the anticipatory bail, Court has
to consider the nature and seriousness of the offences
alleged against the petitioners. The apprehension of the
prosecution may be dispensedwith by imposing suitable
8 [Link]./1039/2023
conditions. Therefore, it can be said that the petitioners
have made out primafacie case for granting anticipatory
bail. Hence, in view of the facts and circumstances of the
case and nature of the offences, I am of the opinion that
the petitioners are entitled for grant of anticipatory bail.
Hence I answered the point No.1 in the Affirmative.
12. Point No.2 : In view of my findings on the above
point, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
The petition filed by the petitioners
under Sec.438 of Cr.P.C. is allowed.
The petitioner Nos.1 to 6 are ordered to
be released on bail in the event of their
arrest by Kaggalipura Police in
[Link].209/2023 on their execution of
personal bond of Rs.5,00,000/ each with
one surety for the like sum, to the
satisfaction of the Investigating Officer,
subject to following conditions:
1. The Petitioner Nos.1 to 6 are directed to
surrender before the Investigating Officer
within 15 days from the date of this order.
2. The Petitioner Nos.1 to 6 shall not tamper
the witnesses by threats, inducement or
otherwise.
3. The Petitioner Nos.1 to 6 shall not commit
similar offences and shall not involve in any
other offences.
4. The Petitioner Nos.1 to 6 shall not leave the
jurisdiction of this Court without prior
permission of the court.
9 [Link]./1039/2023
5. The petitioner No.2 Pradeep, petitioner No.4
Asish, petitioner No.6 Prakash Chand
Nahata shall give their personal attendance
before the SHO of Kaggalipura Police Station,
on every Sunday between 10 am. to 5 p.m.
for a period of three months or till filing of
charge sheet whichever is earlier.
6. The Petitioner Nos.1 to 6 shall keep the
jurisdictional Court and Investigating Officer
informed in writing under acknowledgment
about change in their address, if any.
If in case, the Petitioner Nos.1 to 6 violates
any of the conditions as stated above, the
Prosecution will be at liberty to seek
cancellation of bail.
(Dictated to the Judgment Writer directly on computer, corrected
and signed by me, then order pronounced in the Open Court, on
this the 7th day of June 2023).
(Hosamani Pundalik)
I Addl. District & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru.
10 [Link]./1039/2023
(Orders pronounced in the open Court vide separate
orders)
ORDER
The petition filed by the petitioners
under Sec.438 of Cr.P.C. is allowed.
The petitioner Nos.1 to 6 are ordered to
be released on bail in the event of their
arrest by Kaggalipura Police in
[Link].209/2023 on their execution of
personal bond of Rs.5,00,000/ each with
one surety for the like sum, to the
satisfaction of the Investigating Officer,
subject to following conditions:
[Link] Petitioner Nos.1 to 6 are directed to
surrender before the Investigating Officer
within 15 days from the date of this order.
[Link] Petitioner Nos.1 to 6 shall not tamper the
witnesses by threats, inducement or
otherwise.
[Link] Petitioner Nos.1 to 6 shall not commit
similar offences and shall not involve in any
other offences.
[Link] Petitioner Nos.1 to 6 shall not leave the
jurisdiction of this Court without prior
permission of the court.
[Link] petitioner No.2 Pradeep, petitioner No.4
Asish, petitioner No.6 Prakash Chand
Nahata shall give their personal attendance
before the SHO of Kaggalipura Police Station,
on every Sunday between 10 am. to 5 p.m.
for a period of three months or till filing of
charge sheet whichever is earlier.
11 [Link]./1039/2023
[Link] Petitioner Nos.1 to 6 shall keep the
jurisdictional Court and Investigating Officer
informed in writing under acknowledgment
about change in their address, if any.
If in case, the Petitioner Nos.1 to 6 violates
any of the conditions as stated above, the
Prosecution will be at liberty to seek
cancellation of bail.
I Addl. District & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru.