1
[Link].2154/2024
KABC010057022024
IN THE COURT OF THE LXVIII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND
SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY (CCH-69)
Dated this the 13 th day of March 2024
:PRESENT:
[Link], [Link]., LLB (Spl.)
LXVIII Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru City.
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.2154/2024
PETITIONER : Vinod Kumar @ Vinod Kumar.K,
S/o Late Krishna Chari.K,
Aged about 34 years,
R/at No.807, Kadugodi,
Behind Post Office,
Kadugodi, Bangalore - 560 067.
(By Sri. Prasanna Rao, Adv.,)
V/s
RESPONDENT : State by;
Shankarapura Police Station,
Bengaluru.
(Represented by Public Prosecutor)
2
[Link].2154/2024
ORDER ON BAIL PETITION U/SEC.438 OF CR.P.C.
This petition is filed by the petitioner under Sec.438 of
Cr.P.C., seeking anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest in
connection with [Link].05/2024 registered by the Shankarapura
Police, for the offences punishable under Secs.420, 465, 468,
471, 120B of I.P.C.
2. The brief facts of the case of the petitioner is that, the
respondent police registered case against the petitioner and
another in [Link].05/2024 for the offences punishable Secs.420,
465, 468, 471, 120B of I.P.C on the basis of the complaint filed by
one Siva Kumar.K, [Link] Manager, State Bank of India,
Bengaluru. It is alleged that, accused No.1 approached the SBI,
Kumaraswamy Layout Branch for availing housing loan for
purchase of two sites i.e., site Nos.1 and 2 formed in [Link].115,
situated at Channasandra Village, Bidarahalli Hobli, Bengaluru East
Taluk and accused No.2/petitioner claiming to be the owner of these
sites. The petitioner had agreed to sell the sites to accused No.1 for
total consideration of Rs.1,29,67,500/- each. Thereafter, accused
No.1 submitted two separate loan applications for purchase of two
sites and after ascertaining the title to the said sites by the bank's
panel Advocates and financial status of accused No.1, the bank
sanction two separate loan of Rs.70,00,000/- each to accused No.1
for purchase of sites. Thereafter, the seller's representative
[Link] had come to the bank and deposited the originals of
3
[Link].2154/2024
two sale deeds. Later on, complainant bank came to know that
accused No.1 and 2 in collusion with each other, fabricated and
forged two sale deeds, two rectification deeds and two deeds of
deposit of title documents and have deposited the same with the
SBI and represented to the Bank that the said documents are
genuine one and thereby cheated the complainant bank. Hence,
complainant lodged the complaint against the accused persons.
Hence, apprehending his arrest by the respondent police the
petitioner has filed this anticipatory bail petition.
3. The grounds urged by the petitioner is as under.
The petitioner submitted that, he is innocent of the alleged
offences. He has got valid and tenable defence. The alleged
offences are not punishable with death or imprisonment for life. The
entire allegation made by the complainant is false and frivolous.
The petitioner has not cheated the complainant bank. He is a
permanent resident of address mentioned in the cause title. He is
ready to abide by any conditions may be imposed by this Court. He
is ready and willing to furnish surety for the satisfaction of the court.
Hence, sought for grant of anticipatory bail.
4. The learned Public Prosecutor has filed objections to
the bail petition along with the report of the P.S.I, Shankarpura
Police Station, Bengaluru. In the objections the learned Public
Prosecutor has narrated the facts as stated in the FIR. There are
4
[Link].2154/2024
sufficient materials to show that the accused persons have cheated
the complainant. The accused persons in collusion with each other
forged and fabricated the documents and obtained loan from the
complainant bank. The I.O is yet to recover an amount
Rs.1,40,00,000/- from the petitioner. The petitioner is required for
interrogation. The respondent police have issued notice to the
petitioner U/Sec.41(A) of the Cr.P.C to appear before them for
enquiry. Inspite of it, the petitioner is not ready to appear before the
respondent police. If the petitioner is granted bail, there is every
chance that he may abscond and not co-operate with the
investigation and may tamper the evidence. Therefore, the P.P has
sought for rejection of bail.
5. Heard both sides. Perused the materials on record.
6. The points that arise for my consideration are:
1. Whether the petitioner has made out sufficient
grounds for grant of anticipatory bail as
sought for?
2. What order?
7. My findings to the above points are as follows:
Point No.1 : In the Affirmative,
Point No.2 : As per final order,
for the following;
5
[Link].2154/2024
REASONS
8. POINT No.1: I have gone through the bail petition and
objection statement. It is noticed that, the respondent police
registered case against the petitioner in [Link].05/2024 for the
offences punishable Secs.420, 465, 468, 471, 120B of I.P.C. The
petitioner contended that, he is not involved in the commission of
the alleged offences. The alleged offences are not punishable with
death or imprisonment for life. The petitioner has not cheated the
bank. He is ready to abide by any conditions imposed by this Court.
9. At the same time, the prosecution contended that, the
petitioner is involved in the commission of the offences. The
accused persons in collusion with each other forged and fabricated
the documents and obtained loan from the complainant bank and
cheated the bank. The I.O is yet to recover an amount
Rs.1,40,00,000/- from the petitioner. The petitioner is required for
interrogation. The respondent police have issued notice to the
petitioner U/Sec.41(A) of the Cr.P.C to appear before them for
enquiry. Inspite of it, the petitioner is not ready to appear before the
respondent police. If the petitioner is granted bail, there is every
chance that he may abscond and not co-operate with the
investigation and may tamper the evidence.
10. In this sort of allegation and counter allegation made by
the parties and on perusal of the complaint, FIR and other
6
[Link].2154/2024
documents, it is noticed that the one Siva Kumar.K, [Link]
Manager of SBI has lodged the complaint against the petitioner and
accused No.1 alleging that, accused No.1 obtained loan from SBI
bank for purchase of sites by producing forged documents. The
petitioner is the seller of the sites. Thereby, in order to ascertain the
reality, it requires trial. It is the duty of the complainant bank to
ascertain whether the documents furnished by the accused No.1 is
genuine or fake document. Moreover, the complainant bank has to
obtained the legal opinion from the panel Advocate regarding
documents produced by the accused persons. On the basis of the
legal opinion, the complainant bank has sanctioned the loan. At this
stage, based on the complaint and FIR it is not possible to find out
that the petitioner has committed the alleged offence. Moreover, the
alleged offences are not punishable with death or imprisonment for
life. It is triable by the Magistrate. Thereby, in my opinion the
petitioner being the resident of Bangalore if he is enlarged on bail
by imposing stringent conditions it will protect the interest of the
prosecution. Otherwise, the petitioner will be put to humiliation.
11. At the same time, I would like to refer the citations
reported in 2014(8) SCC 273, in the case of Arnesh Kumar V/s
State of Bihar & another, wherein it is held that :
“Directions issued herein, held, shall apply to
all such cases where offence is punishable with
imprisonment for a term which may be less than 7
years or which may extend to 7 years whether with
7
[Link].2154/2024
or without fine – Police Officers shall not arrest the
accused unnecessarily and Magistrate shall not
authorise detention casually and mechanically –
Failure to comply with these directions, shall, apart
from rendering police officers concerned liable for
departmental action, also make them liable to be
punished for contempt of court – Authorising
detention without recording reasons by Judicial
Magistrate concerned shall be liable to departmental
action by appropriate High Court – Copy of
Judgment to be forwarded to Chief Secretaries as
also Dgs of Police of all States and UT and Registrar
General of all High Courts for ensuring compliance
therewith – Police – Arrest – Penal Code,1860 –
S.498-A – Constitution of India, Arts.21 and 22(2).”
In view of the above citations of the Hon'ble Apex Court, it is
held that “where the offence is punishable with imprisonment for a
term which may be less than 7 years or which may extend to 7
years whether with or without fine, the police offices shall not arrest
the accused unnecessarily and Magistrate shall not authorize
detention causally and mechanically.” The trial court has to go
through the case of the prosecution and conduct of the accused
and enlarge him on bail by putting some stringent conditions.
Otherwise the personal liberty of the accused may be curtiled by
putting him behind the bar. The facts and circumstances discussed
in the above respected citation and the facts and circumstance of
the present case are one and the same. Thereby, the above
respected citation is aptly applicable to the present case on hand.
8
[Link].2154/2024
12. At this juncture, this Court feels that, 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 the
free, fair and full investigation and there should be prevention of
harassment, humiliation and unjustified detention of the accused. In
view of the above discussion, I come to the conclusion that at this
stage the petitioner has made out sufficient grounds to enlarge him
on bail. Moreover, the prosecution contended that in case petitioner
is enlarged on bail, he may abscond, threaten the prosecution
witnesses and hamper the evidence. Thereby this court come to
conclusion that if some stringent conditions are imposed on the
petitioner and granted bail, the apprehension of the prosecution
could be safeguarded. At this juncture, on perusal of entire records,
this Court feels that the petitioner has made out sufficient grounds
to enlarge him on bail. Hence I answer above point No.1 in the
Affirmative.
13. POINT NO.2: In view of my findings point No.1, I
proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
Bail petition filed by the petitioner under
Sec. 438 of Cr.P.C is hereby allowed.
Petitioner is ordered to be released on
anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest in
9
[Link].2154/2024
[Link].05/2024 of respondent P.S., on executing his
personal bond for Rs.50,000/- with one surety for the
like sum on the following conditions.
1. The petitioner shall appear before the IO
within 30 days from the date of this order and co-
operate for investigation.
2. The petitioner shall not tamper with the
Prosecution witnesses either directly or indirectly in
any manner.
3. He shall co-operate for investigation by the
concerned police and regularly appear before the
concerned court as and when required.
4. He shall not abscond from the ordinary
residence and he should furnish the address proof to
the concerned police.
5. He shall not indulge in any kind of offence.
6. He shall not leave the jurisdiction of the court
without prior permission.
7. He shall mark the attendance in the respondent P.S
between 10.00 a.m to 6.00 p.m once in a month i.e.,
on 2nd Sunday till filing of the final report.
10
[Link].2154/2024
If any of the above conditions violated the IO is at
liberty to move for cancellation of bail.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, typed by her directly on Computer,
revised, corrected and then pronounced by me in the open court on this
the 13 th day of March, 2024)
(Sabappa)
LXVIII Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru City.
11
[Link].2154/2024
ORDERS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN
COURT, VIDE SEPARATE ORDER
Bail petition filed by the petitioner under
Sec. 438 of Cr.P.C is hereby allowed.
Petitioner is ordered to be released on
anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest in
[Link].05/2024 of respondent P.S., on
executing his personal bond for Rs.50,000/-
with one surety for the like sum on the following
conditions.
1. The petitioner shall appear before the
IO within 30 days from the date of this order and
co-operate for investigation.
2. The petitioner shall not tamper with
the Prosecution witnesses either directly or
indirectly in any manner.
3. He shall co-operate for investigation
by the concerned police and regularly appear
before the concerned court as and when
required.
4. He shall not abscond from the
ordinary residence and he should furnish the
address proof to the concerned police.
5. He shall not indulge in any kind of
offence.
6. He shall not leave the jurisdiction of
the court without prior permission.
7. He shall mark the attendance in the
respondent P.S between 10.00 a.m to 6.00 p.m
once in a month i.e., on 2 nd Sunday till filing of
the final report.
12
[Link].2154/2024
If any of the above conditions violated
the IO is at liberty to move for cancellation of
bail.
LXVIII A.C.C & S.J,
Bengaluru City.