MyNation KnowledgeBase

Landmark Judgments and Articles on Law

Register to Download

Anticipatory bail of a petitioner residing in India but earning his livelihood from France allowed







Sri Sanjeev Rao
S/o Jayavanth Rao,
Age: 49 years,
R/o No.22, 10th Main Raod,
Malleshwaram, Bengaluru-560 003.
Also at: No.297. Rue Roger Salengro, 34130, Mauguio,France. …Petitioner

(By Sri Ravi B. Naik, Sr. Counsel for Smt. Vijetha R. Naik, Advocate)


State by Cubbon Park Police
Rep. by its Public Prosecutor,
City Civil Court Complex,
Bengaluru-560 009. …Respondent

(By Sri M. Diwakar Maddur,HCGP)

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C., praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest in Cr.No.253/2010 of Cubbon Park Police Station, Bengaluru for the offence P/U/S 468, 471,420 R/w 34 of IPC.

This Criminal Petition coming on for Orders, this day, the Court made the following:


The present petition has been filed by petitioner- accused No.7 under Section 438 of Cr.P.C to release him on anticipatory bail in Criminal Case No.9780/2018 in Crime No.253/2010 of Cubbon Park Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 468, 471 read with Section 34 of IPC.

2. I have heard the learned Senior Counsel Sri Ravi B Naik on behalf of the petitioner-accused and learned High Court Government Pleader.

3. The gist of the complaint is that the complaint was registered by one Sri Ravishankar B Bhoopalpur alleging that the accused has committed the offences under Company Law by creating fake documents and cheated the complainant and the police after investigation, have filed ‘B’ report and ‘B’ report was questioned by the complainant and after considering the material, the Court below has issued summons to the accused. By being apprehended, the petitioner-accused No.7 is before this Court.

See also  Whether former husband of Muslim wife can refuse to pay permanent alimony to her if she remarries after divorce?

4. It is the contention of the learned Senior Counsel that the petitioner-accused apprehend the arrest as already the process has been issued. He further by drawing the attention of this Court to the entire complaint submitted that if the whole complaint is read, there are no specific allegations in so far as the petitioner-accused No.7 is concerned that he is involved in the alleged offences. He further submitted that already the police after investigation have filed ‘B’ report and under such circumstances, the accused-petitioner is entitled to be released on bail. He also further by relying upon the decision in the case of Gian Singh vs State of Rajasthan reported in (1999) 5 SCC 694, submitted that though the petitioner-accused resides both in India as well as in France, but it is his livelihood and if he is not permitted to go to France, which is his livelihood, then he is going to be affected. He further submitted that the accused-petitioner is ready to abide by any of the terms and conditions that may be imposed by this Court and also ready to offer surety, if he is released on bail. On these grounds, he prayed to allow the petition and to release the petitioner- accused on bail.

5. Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader vehemently argued and submitted that the petitioner along with other accused persons has cheated the complainant and the complainant and his friends have invested huge amount of Rs.10,12,63,285/-. Thereafter, they have not communicated and the accused-petitioner has committed offences under the Company Law. He further submitted that B report filed by the Investigating Agency, has been contested by the complainant and considering the material, the Court has taken cognizance and issued the process by holding that there is prima-facie material. He further submitted that the petitioner-accused is a resident of France and if he is released on bail, he may abscond and he may not be available for trial. On these grounds, he prayed to dismiss the petition.

See also  Evidence not Collected by IO or Part of the case Diary Can't form Basis for Taking Cognizance

6. I have carefully and cautiously gone through the contents of the complaint and other materials, which has been produced along with the petition. As could be seen from the records, it indicates the fact that already the matter has been referred to investigation by the police. Investigating Agency has filed ‘B’ report as per Annexure- D. Even the records also indicate the fact that accused Nos.3 to 6 have been already released on bail by the court below by order dated 19.07.2018. Even though the learned Senior Counsel submitted that there is no material as against petitioner-accused No.7, but, when the complainant has challenged a ‘B’ report and it is yet to be decided by the court below, whether the cognizance in this behalf can be taken is a matter, which has to be considered and decided at the final stage, but, by taking into consideration the fact that already ‘B’ report has been filed and thereafter the ‘B’ report has been challenged and the process has been issued, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case in full, if the accused-petitioner is enlarged on bail and imposed some stringent conditions, it will meet the ends of justice.

7. In that light, the Criminal Petition is allowed and the accused-petitioner is ordered to be released on anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest in Crime No.253/2010 of Cubbon Park Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 468, 471 read with Section 34 of IPC for following conditions:

1. Accused-petitioner shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/-(Rupees Two Lakhs Only) with two sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the Investigating Agency.
2. He shall not tamper with any of the prosecution evidence directly or indirectly.
3. He shall be available for investigation as and when he is ordered to appear before the Investigating Agency or before the Court.
4. After the trial begins, the accused-
petitioner should appear before the Court below if his presence is imperatively needed. Otherwise, he is permitted to file the requisite application in this behalf for dispensation.
5. Petitioner-accused No.7 is directed to surrender before the court below within three weeks, failing which this order automatically stands cancelled.

See also  SC : Parental Responsibility Does Not End With Breakdown Of Marriage


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

CopyRight @ MyNation

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Section 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

See also  SC : Parental Responsibility Does Not End With Breakdown Of Marriage
MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation