AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Rajendra Badamikar, J
This petition is filed by Accused Nos. 1 & 3 under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. seeking anticipatory bail in the event of their arrest in Crime No. 224/2023 of Thalaghattapura Police Station, Bengaluru District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 380,420 and 454 of IPC.
The allegation of the prosecution discloses that, there are certain financial transactions between one Veeresh and Madhugowda and in this regard the petitioners have mediated for settling the dispute and received Rs.66,500/-. It is further alleged that they could not settle the dispute and on 01.06.2023 at 9.00 a.m., the petitioners have broke open the lock of the house of the complainant and stolen the golden ornaments, Silver articles, furnitures, documents and DVR etc and after getting knowledge of this aspect, the complainant travelled to Bangalore from Mysuru and lodged a complaint on 12.07.2023. On the basis of the complaint, the FIR came to be issued and apprehending their arrest, the petitioners have approached the learned Sessions judge seeking anticipatory bail and learned Sessions Judge has rejected their bail petition. Hence, they have approached this Court.
Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioners and learned High Court Government Pleader for the Respondent-State. Perused the record.
Learned counsel for the petitioners would contend that, the alleged incident is said to have taken place on 01.06.2023 and complainant got the information of this aspect on 03.06.2023, but the complaint was lodged on 12.07.2023 and delay is not explained. It is also contended that the schedule property wherein, alleged offence is said to have been committed was sold by the complainant on 25.05.2023 itself under a registered sale deed and the possession was also handed over to petitioner No.1, but now the allegation is that on 01.06.2023 complainant was in a possession, which is against the recitals of said sale deed. He would contend that the petitioner/Accused No.1 has already obtained the possession of the scheduled property on 25.05.2023 itself and as such question of he committing theft in his own property would not arise at all. The petitioners also undertake to abide by all the terms and conditions to be imposed by this Court. Hence, he seeks for admitting him on anticipatory bail.
Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader would contend that there is a prima facie case against the petitioners and in case they are enlarged on anticipatory bail, there is every possibility of they tampering the prosecution witnesses. Hence, sought for rejection of the bail petition.
Having heard the arguments and perusing of the records the allegation discloses that, the alleged incident is said to have committed on 01.06.2023 in morning around 9 ‘O' Clock, but the complaint came to be filed on 12.7.2023 at 12.30 pm and there is inordinate delay in lodging the complaint. The complainant claims that, the petitioners broke open the lock of his house and committed theft. But, he did not disclose the details of the stolen goods including the gold and silver articles, furnitures and documents and no details were referred in the complaint.
On the contrary, the document produced by the complainant and the petitioners disclose that the said property itself was sold under a registered sale deed on 25.05.2023 by the complainant and his wife, in favour of petitioner No.1. The contents of the sale deed further disclose that, all the relevant documents along with possession was handed over to the petitioner No.1 and now the allegations were that in the said property itself, the theft was committed. When the possession of the said property was handed over on 25.05.2023, question of committing theft in his own house, where petitioner No.1 said to have committed theft on 01.06.2023, does not arise at all. The other documents disclose that petitioner No.1 has also filed an injunction suit against the complainant, his wife and others and obtained ex-parte injunction.
All the above facts and circumstances clearly establish that there are certain civil disputes between parties, which is given the colour of criminal litigation. Considering these facts and circumstances, I do not find any impediment for admitting petitioners/Accused Nos. 1 & 3 on anticipatory bail. The other apprehensions raised by the learned HCGP be meted out by imposing certain conditions. Hence the petition needs to be allowed and accordingly I proceed to pass following:
ORDER
i) Petition is allowed.
ii) The petitioners/Accused 1 & 3 are directed to be enlarged on bail in the event of their arrest in Crime No.224/2023 of Thalaghattapura Police Station, Bengaluru District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 380, 420, and 454 of IPC, on executing personal bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- each with one surety each, for the like-sum to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer or the concerned trial Court, subject to following conditions:
a) Petitioners shall surrender themselves before the Investigating Officer within ten days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order and in the event of their surrender, Investigating Officer/SHO shall release them on bail as directed.
b) They shall not directly or indirectly tamper with any of the prosecution witnesses.
c) They shall not indulge in any similar offences.
d) They shall make themselves available to the Investigating Officer for interrogation whenever called for during course of investigation.
e) They shall mark their attendance before the Investigating Officer/SHO between 9.00 a.m. and 5.00 p.m. on every Sunday of the month till the final report is submitted.