SRI. MANJUNATH R v. THE STATE BY KENGERI POLICE STATION
Case at a glance
Outcome
Allowed
The petition is allowed
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 55. Accordingly, I answer the above point in the affirmative and proceed to pass the following: ORDER The petition is allowed. The petitioners are ordered to be enlarged on bail in the event of their arrest in Crime No.171/2024 of Kengeri Police Station. The petitioners…
Judgment
SRI. MANJUNATH R S/O. LATE SRI. RAME GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, R/AT NO. 2037, BROAD ROAD, VIJAYAPURA, CHICKAMAGALURU-577 101.
SRI. KRISHNA. G. N. W/O. SRI. NANJAIAH, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, R/AT NO. 1011/1345, 2ND PHASE, 1ST H MAIN ROAD, 8TH STREET, GIRINAGARA, BENGALURU-560 086. MAYAGAIAH VINUTHA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA (BY SRI. SURESH S LOKRE, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI. PRAMODA GOWDA T.P, ADVOCATE) AND: …PETITIONERS THE STATE BY KENGERI POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BENGALURU-560 001. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. RAHUL RAI.K, HCGP) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.438 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONERS ON BAIL IN THE EVENT OF THEIR ARREST IN CRL.MISC.NO.3074/2024 (CR.NO.171/2024) OF - 2 - NC: 2024:KHC:19788 CRL.P No. 4001 of 2024 KENGERI P.S., BENGLAURU CITY FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 406,420,465,467,468,471 R/W 34 OF IPC ON THE COMPLAINT LODGED BY SMT.SURMA SRINIVAS ACHAR, DATED 25.03.2024 ON THE FILE OF THE 4th ADDL.CMM COURT, BENGALURU AND DIRECT THE JURISDICTIONAL POLICE TO RELEASE THE PETITIONERS IN CASE OF THEIR ARREST. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: ORDER The petitioners-accused Nos.1 and 3 are before this Court seeking grant of anticipatory bail in Crime No.171/2024 of Kengeri Police Station, pending on the file of the learned IV Additional CMM Court, Bengaluru registered for the offences punishable under Sections 120B, 406, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 r/w Section 34 of Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC'), on the basis of the first information lodged by the informant- Smt. Surma Srinivas Achar.
2. Heard Sri. Suresh S.Lokre, learned Senior counsel for the petitioners and Sri. Rahul Rai.K., learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State. Perused the materials on record.
In view of the rival contentions urged by the learned counsel for both the parties, the point that would arise for my consideration is: - 3 - NC: 2024:KHC:19788 CRL.P No. 4001 of 2024 “Whether the petitioners is entitled for grant of bail under Section 438 of Cr.P.C.?” My answer to the above point is in ‘Affirmative’ for the following: R E A S O N S
The petitioners-accused Nos.1 and 3 are seeking grant of anticipatory bail on apprehension of being arrested. The informant lodged the first information alleging that accused Nos.1 to 5 have committed the offence as stated above. It is her contention that she is the owner of the property in question under a gift deed. Accused No.1 executed a gift deed in favour of accused No.4 on 28.12.2017. Accused No.4 said to be the wife of accused No.3. All the accused said to have brainwashed the complainant and the sale agreement was got executed in favour of accused No.5 on 12.08.2022. Admittedly, accused No.4 has filed a suit in O.S.No.8329/2022 for permanent injunction against the informant. It is stated that the informant being the defendant in the said suit filed written statement on
05.12.2023 and thereafter, filed the first information on
25.03.2024. Admittedly, accused Nos.2, 4 and 5 are already - 4 - NC: 2024:KHC:19788 CRL.P No. 4001 of 2024 granted anticipatory bail. Considering all these facts and the nature of the offence, I am of the opinion that the petitioners may be granted anticipatory bail subject to conditions, which will take care of the apprehensions expressed by the learned High Court Government Pleader that the petitioners may abscond or may tamper or threaten the prosecution witnesses.
Operative part
Accordingly, I answer the above point in the affirmative and proceed to pass the following: ORDER The petition is allowed. The petitioners are ordered to be enlarged on bail in the event of their arrest in Crime No.171/2024 of Kengeri Police Station. The petitioners are directed to appear before the Investigating Officer within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order and on their appearance, the Investigating Officer shall enlarge them on bail subject to the following conditions:- a. The petitioners shall furnish the bond in a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only) each with two sureties each for the likesum to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer; - 5 - NC: 2024:KHC:19788 CRL.P No. 4001 of 2024 b. The petitioners shall not commit similar offences; c. The petitioners shall appear before Investigating Officer or the court as and when required; and d. The petitioners shall not threaten or tamper the prosecution witnesses. On furnishing the sureties by the petitioners, the Investigating Officer is at liberty to verify the correctness of the address and authenticity of the documents furnished by them. On satisfaction of the said documents, he may proceed to accept the sureties within a reasonable time. Sd/- JUDGE VM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 9
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: The petition is allowed
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 438; Indian Penal Code, 1860 — s. 34.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.