Sagara Radhakrishna Chendekar Vs State by

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 438 CR.PC (FILED U/S 482 BNNS) PRAYING TO GRANT ANTICIPATORY BAIL IN THE HIS EVENT OF ARREST IN CRIME NO. 822/2024 FOR THE O/P/U/S 66(C), 66(D) OF I.T ACT, 2000 AND SECTION 318(4) OF BNS, 2023 REGISTERED BY K R PURAM POLICE STATION, BENGALURU NOW CASE PENDING ON THE HONBLE 29TH

¶18

2 -

¶19

NC: 2025:KHC:12710 CRL.P No. 3268 of 2025

¶20

ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE AT BENGALURU.

¶21

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

¶22

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

¶23

ORAL ORDER

¶24

Petitioner, who apprehends arrest in Crime No.822/2024 registered by K. R. Puram Police Station, Bengaluru City, for the offence punishable under Section 318(4) of BNS, 2023 and Sections 66(C) and 66(D) of Information Technology Act, 2000, is before this Court under Section 482 of BNSS, 2023, seeking anticipatory bail.

¶25

Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

¶26

FIR in Crime No.822/2024 was registered by K. R. Puram

¶27

Police Station, Bengaluru City, for the aforesaid offences against unknown persons based on the first information dated 01.10.2024 received from Sujata Kumari. Apprehending arrest in the case, petitioner has filed Crl.Misc.No.25040/2025 before the jurisdictional Sessions Court which was rejected on 29.01.2025. Therefore, he is before this Court.

¶28

3 -

¶29

NC: 2025:KHC:12710 CRL.P No. 3268 of 2025

¶30

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has received amount from four different bank accounts within the period from 27.09.2024 to 30.09.2024 and the amount which was received in petitioner's account was also transferred to various accounts by fraudsters and petitioner is the victim of

¶31

the fraud committed by some fraudsters. He is ready and willing to cooperate with the police for the purpose of investigation. He has no criminal antecedents. Accordingly, he prays to allow the petition.

¶32

Per contra, learned Addl. SPP has opposed the petition. She submits that inspite of repeated notices issued to the petitioner, he has not cooperated with the police for the purpose of investigation.

¶33

A perusal of the material on record would go to show that FIR in the present case was registered for the aforesaid offences against unknown persons and during the course of investigation, it was found that certain amounts were transferred from the account of the complainant to petitioner's account. It is under these circumstances, petitioner was issued with an enquiry notice under Section 35(3) of BNSS, 2023, by

¶34

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:12710 CRL.P No. 3268 of 2025

¶35

the Investigation Officer and therefore, petitioner apprehends arrest in the present case. During the course of arguments, it is brought to the notice of this Court by learned Addl. SPP that in addition to receipt of money from the account of the complainant, petitioner has also received money from three other different bank accounts in similar fashion and even the said transactions are under investigation.

¶36

Learned counsel for the petitioner has produced bank account extract of the petitioner, which would reflect that immediately after the amounts were credited to the account of the petitioner, they were also transferred to various other accounts and petitioner has not withdrawn the amount which was deposited in his bank account. It is the specific case of the petitioner that he is the victim in the present case and his bank account has been used by fraudsters for the purpose of transferring amounts. Be that as it may, the fact remains that petitioner has no other criminal antecedents and the alleged offences are triable by the Court of Magistrate and the maximum punishment for the alleged offences is imprisonment for a period of seven years. Petitioner has undertaken to cooperate with the police for the purpose of investigation.

¶37

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:12710 CRL.P No. 3268 of 2025

¶38

Under the circumstances, I am of the opinion that the prayer made by the petitioner for grant of anticipatory bail needs to be answered affirmatively subject to liberty to the Investigation Officer to file necessary application before the jurisdictional Magistrate to seek petitioner's custody for interrogation if necessary. Accordingly, the following order:-

¶39

The petition is allowed. The respondent - Police or any other police in the State of Karnataka are directed to release the petitioner in the event of his arrest in Crime No.822/2024 registered by K. R. Puram Police Station, Bengaluru City, for the offence punishable under Section 318(4) of BNS, 2023 and Sections 66(C) and 66(D) of Information Technology Act, 2000, subject to the following conditions:

¶40

Petitioner shall appear before the Investigation Officer on 02.04.2025 at 10.00 a.m. and on the said date, the Investigation Officer is at liberty to take him into custody if necessary, for the purpose of interrogation. However, it is made clear that after interrogation, Investigation Officer shall release the petitioner on the same day on or before 06.00 p.m. subject to petitioner executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees

¶41

6 -

¶42

NC: 2025:KHC:12710 CRL.P No. 3268 of 2025

¶43

One Lakh only) with two sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer.

¶44

Petitioner shall regularly appear before the Trial Court without fail unless exempted by the Trial Court for valid reasons.

¶45

Petitioner shall not tamper with the prosecution witness and he shall co-operate with the police for investigation and appear before them whenever called upon.

¶46

The petitioner shall not involve in similar offences in future.

¶47

Sd /- (S VISHWAJITH SHETTY) JUDGE

¶48

DN

Sagara Radhakrishna Chendekar v. State by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sagara Radhakrishna Chendekar v. State by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Sanketh Kumar @ Chethan Vs the State of Karnataka

Shri. Sandeep K Vs the State of Karnataka

Manosiji Roy Vs State of Karnataka

Srinivasa @ Kitty @ Cable Kitty Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Ismail Sharief Vs Union of India

Gangaraju Vs State by