Bangalore District Court
Radha @ Radha Agarwal vs State Of Karnataka on 30 December, 2019
1
Crl.Misc. No. 11351/2019
IN THE COURT OF LXIX ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND
SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH 70)
Present: Sri Gururaj Somakkalavar, M.A.,LL.B.,
LXIX Additional City Civil and
Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru.
Dated this the 30th day of December, 2019
Crl.Misc.No.11351/2019
Petitioner; Radha @ Radha Agarwal
@ Anjana,
w/o Ashok Kumar,
Aged 30 years,
r/at No.57, 2nd cross, SVK layout,
Basaveshwarnagar ,
Bangalore.
Now residing at
No. 27/1, 1st main road,
Coconut grand, Nagarbhavi,
Bangalore 560 072.
(Sri Avinash Sathyaprakash,Advocate)
Vs.
Respondent: State of Karnataka
by Koramangala P.S.
Bengalur.
(By Public Prosecutor)
ORDER ON BAIL PETITIONS FILED
U/SEC. 438 OF CR.P.C.
The petitioner prayed before this court for granting of
anticipatory bail u/sec. 438 of Cr.P.C. in Cr. No. 316/2011 (CC
No. 3303/2019) for the offences under Sections 419, 465,
468, 471, 420, 120(b) r/w 34 of IPC.
2. On the complaint lodged by the complainant for the
2
Crl.Misc. No. 11351/2019
offences above stated the police have registered FIRs against
the petitioner and others. It is alleged in the complaint that the
accused have committed cheating and forged the documents.
Hence the informant has filed complaint before the
respondent Police to take necessary action against the
accused. Apprehending her arrest by the police in the above
crime the petitioners/accused have knocked the doors of this
court seeking anticipatory bail.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued
that the petitioner is innocent of the offences alleged, she has
has been falsely implicated in this case, The investigation is
completed and the charge sheet is filed, the petitioner is the
respectable person in the society, she is the permanent
resident of address given, she undertakes to furnish the
solvent surety to the satisfaction of the court for his due
appearance if the bail is granted, she is ready to obey the
conditions of the court. This court has granted bail to A1. With
these amongst others grounds, the petitioner prays to grant
anticipatory bail to him in both cases.
4. Per contra the learned Public Prosecutor filed objection
opposing grant of bail. PP has contended that the accused
have committed the offence of cheating, If she is released on
bail, there is every chance of abscandance. They are involved
in number of cases. Hence learned PP prays to reject the bail
petition.
5. Heard the arguments on both side and perused the
records.
3
Crl.Misc. No. 11351/2019
6. The points that arise for my consideration are as
under:
i. Whether petitioner is justified in seeking
anticipatory bail u/sec. 438 of Cr.P.C in
both cases.?
ii. What order?
7. My finding on the above points are as follows:
i. Point No.1: In affirmative.
ii. Point No.2: As per final order on the following
REASONS
8. The complaint averments discloses that the
respondent police have registered a case in Cr.No.316/2011
against the petitioner/Accused and others for the offences as
stated above. The learned counsel for the petitioner has
contended that petitioner has been falsely roped into the case
with ill-motive and the complaint is an after through. He
contended that the petitioner has not cheated the
complainant.
9. On perusal of the records, it would depict that the
complainants have filed complaints against the accused
alleging that the accused have cheated the bank and tried to
avail the mortgage loan and they also forged the documents.
But the petitioner has denied all the allegations. The cases
pertains to the year 2010 and 2011. Though the allegations of
cheating and other allegations have been made against the
accused/petitioner, but the said allegations have to be proved
through full pledged trial. In the case on hand the petitioner is
the permanent resident of address given in the cause title of
the petition, which has not been either denied or disputed by
4
Crl.Misc. No. 11351/2019
the prosecution. The petitioner has undertaken to abide by the
conditions of the court and to offer surety for the satisfaction
of the court. The record shows that A1 has been granted bail by
this court. It also reveals from the record of the trial court that
the case is split up against the present petitioner. It is the
contention of the petitioner that the petitioner is not aware of
the split up case against her. Hence she is not able to appear
before the court. It also reveals from the records that the NBW
is issued against the present petitioner by the trial court.
Hence, apprehending the arrest the petitioner has sought for
anticipatory bail. It is necessary to allow the petition for
appearance of the petitioner before the trial court and for
speedy disposal of the case. Since the matter is pending since
from 2011, the petitioner hereby is also directed to appear
before the court and cooperate in speedy disposal of the case.
Considering the gravity of the offence and the ground of parity
and punishment provided thereto and the material on record
this court is of the opinion that the petitioner has made out
grounds for grant of anticipatory bail. Thus, this petitioner is
entitled for grant of anticipatory bail. Hence, this point is
answered in the affirmative.
10. Point No.2: In the learned above reasons, I proceed
to pass the following;
ORDER
Bail petitions filed under Sec. 438 of Cr.P.C. by the Petitioner is allowed.
Petitioner is ordered to be released on anticipatory bail in the event of her arrest in Cr. No. 316/2011 (CC No. 3303/2019) on executing her personal 5 Crl.Misc. No. 11351/2019 bond for Rs. 1,00,000/- , with two sureties for the likesum (out of two sureties, one surety must be the surety of Government servant) on the following conditions.
1. The Petitioner shall not tamper with the Prosecution witnesses either directly or indirectly in any manner.
2. she shall appear before concerned court as and when required.
3. she shall not abscond from the ordinary residence and she should furnish the address proof to the concerned police.
4. she shall not indulge in any kind of offence.
5. she shall appear before 1st ACMM within 15 days from the date of this order.
6. Since this case pertains to the year 2011, the petitioner is strictly directed to cooperate for speedy disposal of the case.
If any of the above conditions violated the IO is at liberty to move for cancellation of bail.
(Dictated to the Judgment Writer, script thereof is corrected, signed and pronounced by me in open court on this the 30 th day of December, 2019) (Gururaj Somakkalavar) LXIX Addl.C.C. & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.