Sri Muthu S Vs State by Yelahanka Police Station

THIS CRL.P IS FILED UNDER SECTION 438 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 (FILED UNDER SECTION 482 BNSS) PRAYING TO ALLOW THE PETITION AND PASS AN ORDER DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT POLICE/HON'BLE 37^TH A.C.M.M. COURT AT BENGALURU TO IMMEDIATELY RELEASE THE PETITIONERS ON ANTICIPATORY BAIL IN C.C.NO.20740/2022 PENDING ON THE 37^TH A.C.M.M COURT AT BENGALURU OF THE RESPONDENT CR.NO.248/2021 YELAHANKA P.S. FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 419, 420 READ WITH SECTION 34 OF IPC.

¶16

2 -

¶17

NC: 2025:KHC:990 CRL.P No. 13176 of 2024

¶18

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶19

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN

¶20

ORAL ORDER

¶21

Learned High Court Government Pleader is directed to accept notice for the respondent.

¶22

This petition is filed by the petitioner-accused No.3 under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. (482 BNSS) for granting anticipatory bail in Crime No.248/2021 of Yelahanka Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 120B, 419, 420, 465, 468, 471 read with Section 34 of IPC.

¶23

Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State.

¶24

The case of the prosecution is that the complainant - M. Jamuna has filed first information to the police on 24.09.2021 alleging that the site No.454 measuring 30 x 40 sq. ft. has been allotted to her mother-in-law - Bhagirathamma in

¶25

the year 1972 by the Karnataka State Government. The State Government also issued Hakkupathra in her name and she

¶26

3 -

¶27

NC: 2025:KHC:990 CRL.P No. 13176 of 2024

¶28

constructed a small house and was enjoying the said property. The said Bhagirathamma died on 09.04.2017 and after the demise of her mother-in-law, the complainant found the site documents and after verifying the documents in the SubRegistrar office and Revenue Office, she found that the site No.454 has been divided into two portions by impersonation of her mother-in-law and another woman has got created the documents and executed the sale deeds in favour of accused No.2. It is further alleged that the accused persons impersonated her mother-in-law and created the documents. After registering the FIR, the police tried to arrest the accused Nos.4 and 7. The accused Nos.4 and 7 approached this Court for anticipatory bail and they have been granted anticipatory bail by this Court in Crl.P.No.8788/2021 on 16.12.2021.

¶29

The present petitioner is said to be shown as accused No.3 in the charge-sheet and he is apprehending arrest in the hands of police. Hence, he approached the Sessions Court for grant of anticipatory bail, which came to be rejected. Hence, he is before this Court.

¶30

4 -

¶31

NC: 2025:KHC:990 CRL.P No. 13176 of 2024

¶32

Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that accused No.2 was the purchaser of the property from the erstwhile owner and this petitioner is subsequent purchaser from accused No.2 under the registered sale deed. He is the bonafide purchaser and he is not aware of the previous transaction. Nothing was seized from this petitioner and he is not required for any interrogation. The investigation is completed, charge-sheet is filed. The co-accused persons were already granted anticipatory bail by this Court. Hence, this petitioner is also entitled for anticipatory bail on the ground of parity.

¶33

Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader objected the petition.

¶34

Having heard the arguments and on perusal of the records, it is alleged that the accused persons created document and executed the sale deed in favour of accused No.2 by impersonating the mother-in-law of the complainant. The present petitioner is said to be the subsequent purchaser from accused No.2. Investigation is completed and chargesheet is filed. The co-accused persons have been granted

¶35

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:990 CRL.P No. 13176 of 2024

¶36

anticipatory bail by this Court. Nothing is recovered from this petitioner and he is not required for any interrogation. Such being the case, the petitioner is entitled for anticipatory bail. Hence, the following

¶37

ORDER

¶38

The petition is allowed .

¶39

The respondent - police are directed to release the petitioner/accused No.3 on bail in the event of his arrest in Crime No.248/2021 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 120B, 419, 420, 465, 468, 471 read with Section 34 of IPC, subject to the following conditions:

¶40

(i) Petitioner shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only)

¶41

with one surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer;

¶42

(ii) Petitioner shall surrender before the Investigating officer within fifteen days from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order;

¶43

6 -

¶44

NC: 2025:KHC:990 CRL.P No. 13176 of 2024

¶45

(iii) Petitioner shall be deemed custody for the purpose of any recovery under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872;

¶46

(iv) If any material is collected by the Investigating Officer during the investigation, they are at liberty to file additional chargesheet against the petitioner;

¶47

(v) After the arrest and release of the petitioner by the Investigating Officer, the petitioner shall appear before the Magistrate.

¶48

Sd/(K.NATARAJAN) JUDGE

¶49

PMR

¶50

List No.: 2 Sl No.: 5

Sri Muthu S v. State by Yelahanka Police Station

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Muthu S v. State by Yelahanka Police Station

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Hajira Bi Vs Sri. M. Krishnamurthy Rao

Smt. Mamtaz Begum Vs Smt. Nusrath Azmath

Smt. Lakshmamma Vs Sri. Dasegowda

Hussaini Baig Alias Yasin Vs the State of Karnataka

G v Kalpana Vs Venkataswamy

Smt Gowramma Vs Sri. Govindappa M