Karnataka High Court
Venkatesh G vs State Of Karnataka on 20 February, 2024
Author: Mohammad Nawaz
Bench: Mohammad Nawaz
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:7064
CRL.P No. 367 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 367 OF 2024
BETWEEN:
1. VENKATESH G,
S/O V. GURAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
R/O NO.841, 1ST MAIN,
NEW BINNY LAYOUT,
BINNEPETE, MAGADI ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 023.
2. NAVEEN,
S/O JAGADESH,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.94/3,
CHALUVARAJA MUDLIAR,
FRAZER TOWN, BENGALURU - 560 023.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. SRINATHA G, ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed
by V KRISHNA AND:
Location: High
Court of
STATE OF KARNATAKA
Karnataka
BY SHO, BANASHANKARI PS,
BANGALORE - 560 082,
REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
BANGALORE - 560 001
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. RAJAT SUBRAMANYA, HCGP)
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:7064
CRL.P No. 367 of 2024
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 CR.NO.171/2023 FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCE P/U/S 448,
452, 323, 457, 380, 427, 120B, 506 R/W 34 OF IPC AND SECTION
2(A) OF PDPP ACT 1981 REGISTERED BY THE
RESPONDENT/BANASHANKARI POLICE, BENGALURU NOW PENDING
ON THE FILE OF C.M.M., BENGALURU.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, learned High Court Government Pleader for the State and perused the material on record.
2. Petitioners / accused Nos.1 and 2 have preferred this petition under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.171/2023 of Banashankari Police Station, registered for the offence punishable under Sections 448, 452, 323, 457, 380, 427, 120B, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC and Section 2(A) of the Prevention of Destruction and Loss of Property Act, 1981.
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:7064 CRL.P No. 367 of 2024
3. In the complaint lodged by one Kadaba Srinath Vasuki son of Sri. Kadaba Ramanujam Jayaram, he has averred that his uncle by name Kadaba Ramanujam Jayaram was the owner of a residential house property bearing No.135 situated at 4th Cross, 2nd Stage, Radhakrishna Layout, Padmanabhanagar, Corporation Ward No.55, having purchased the same under a sale deed dated 30.01.1984, from one Sri. Radhakrishna House Building Co-operative Society Limited. He gifted the said property in favour of his wife, Smt. Vijayalakshmi Jayaram under a registered gift deed dated 18.11.1999 and they were residing in the said property with their daughter, Miss Smitha. Their daughter died on 07.07.2019, his uncle died on 29.02.2020 and his aunt died on 03.02.2022. Therefore, he along with one Shashikala Prasad being the only surviving legal heirs have succeeded to the estate of his uncle late Kadaba Ramanujam Jayaram and his aunt late Vijayalakshmi Jayaram and they are in possession of the said property.
4. It is alleged that the petitioners, who are no way related to the family, have created and concocted the documents with an intention to create third party rights by way -4- NC: 2024:KHC:7064 CRL.P No. 367 of 2024 of a lease over the aforementioned property and they are creating problems and threatening the complainant and other persons who are presently residing in the property.
5. It is further alleged that in order to knock of the said property, the petitioners have trespassed into the property on 12.06.2023 at about 11.00 p.m., along with an accomplice and have beaten the persons who are residing in the said premises and also broken the surveillance camera and DVR installed in the said premises, causing damage to the property and also illegally taken away the valuables and a cash of Rs.20,000/- including the original documents of the property kept in the almirah, etc.
6. The petitioners claim to be innocent. It is contended by the learned counsel that the petitioners have not committed any offence much less the one alleged against them and they are in no way connected to the property in question. The learned counsel submits that the petitioners are ready and willing to cooperate with the investigation of the case and are ready to abide by any conditions which may be imposed by this Court. He has accordingly sought to allow the petition. -5-
NC: 2024:KHC:7064 CRL.P No. 367 of 2024
7. The learned High Court Government Pleader has contended that the petitioners are named in the FIR and there are specific allegations against them. The police have conducted the spot mahazar and the investigation is under progress and therefore, if the petitioners are enlarged on anticipatory bail, they may not cooperate with the investigation. Hence, he has sought to reject the petition.
8. According to the complainant, his uncle and aunt were residing in the property in question along with their daughter and after they died, he along with one Shashikala Prasad are in possession of the property. In the complaint itself, it is stated that subsequent to the death of the complainant's aunt, the police visited the property and drawn a mahazar on 01.03.2020 and seized the valuables belonging to his uncle and aunt. It is alleged that the petitioners are trying to harm the complainant with a dishonest intention to knock of the property belonging to the complainant's family. The petitioners are not claiming any rights over the property. In the complaint, it is alleged that the petitioners have beaten the persons who are residing in the premises on 12.06.2023. It is -6- NC: 2024:KHC:7064 CRL.P No. 367 of 2024 not stated as to who is that person who is residing in the said premises.
9. Learned counsel for the petitioners would contend that the complainant himself is trying to knock of the property claiming to be the sole surviving legal heir of the deceased. Admittedly, on 12.06.2023, when the petitioners, along with others, are alleged to have broken the surveillance camera and DVR installed, the complainant was not present. In the complaint, the name of the person who was present and allegedly beaten up by the petitioners is not stated. The allegations have to be proved in due course. Petitioners have undertaken to cooperate with the investigation of the case. Hence, the following:
ORDER
i) The petition is allowed.
ii) The petitioners / accused Nos.1 and 2 are directed to be released in the event of their arrest in Crime No.171/2023 of Banashankari Police Station registered for the offence punishable under Sections 448, 452, 323, 457, 380, 427, 120B, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC and Section 2(A) of the -7- NC: 2024:KHC:7064 CRL.P No. 367 of 2024 Prevention of Destruction and Loss of Property Act, 1981 pending on the file of the Court Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, subject to the following conditions:
a. They shall appear before the Investigation Officer within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and shall execute a personal bond in a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- [Rupees One Lakh only] each, with one surety for the likesum.
b. They shall cooperate with the investigation and shall not tamper with the prosecution witnesses in any manner.
c. They shall be available for the
investigation of the case, whenever
required.
d. They shall furnish proof of thier
residential address and shall inform the I.O/Court regarding change in the address, if any.-8-
NC: 2024:KHC:7064 CRL.P No. 367 of 2024 e. They shall appear before the Court on every date of hearing, without fail.
f. They shall not indulge in any criminal activities.
Sd/-
JUDGE GJM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 45 CT: BHK