Syed Nizam Ali vs State By Nazarabad Police Station
2021 Latest Caselaw 3464 Kant

                        1


 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

   DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF OCTOBER, 2021

                     BEFORE

       THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. NATARAJAN

       CRIMINAL PETITION NO.5796/2021

BETWEEN:

SYED NIZAM ALI
S/O. SYED TAHIR ALI
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS
R/AT NO.999, 18TH CROSS
NEAR SAINT DANIEL SCHOOL
RAJIVNAGAR
MYSURU-570 019.
                                    ...PETITIONER

(BY SRI.VIVEK S REDDY, SENIOR ADV
 FOR SRI.SUBBA REDDY K.N. ADVOCATE)

AND:

STATE BY NAZARABAD POLICE STATION
KASTURBA ROAD
BENGALURU-560 001
REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BENGALURU - 560 001.

                                   ...RESPONDENT

(BY SRI. MAHESH SHETTY, HCGP)
                                2


     THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 438 OF CR.P.C. BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE
PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS HON'BLE COURT MAY
BE PLEASED TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN
THE EVENT OF HIS ARREST IN C.C.NO.126/2020 IN
CR.NO.32/2019 NAZARBAD P.S., MYSURU CITY FOR
THE OFFENCE P/U/S 120(B), 420 R/W SEC.34 OF IPC.

    THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON                      FOR
ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE                          THE
FOLLOWING:

                          ORDER

This petition is filed by petitioner-accused No.1

under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. for granting him

anticipatory bail in Crime No.32/2019 registered by

Nazarbad Police Station, Mysore (now pending on the

file of III Additional Senior Civil Judge and C.J.M,

Mysuru in C.C.No.126/2020) for the offences

punishable under Sections 121B, 420, 460 read with

Section 34 of Indian Penal Code.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner

and the learned High Court Government Pleader for the

respondent-State.

3. The case of the prosecution is that on the

complaint of one Chandre Gowda S, who is said to be

the President of the Ashritha House Building

Co-operative Society, Mysore (for short 'Society') filed

a private complaint before the Magistrate and in turn,

the same was referred to the Police. The police have

registered a case in Crime No.32/2019 for the aforesaid

offences and after investigation, the charge sheet has

been filed. It is the further case of the petitioner that

the petitioner and the Society had entered into an

agreement for developing the lands and formation of

sites as agreed upon by them. Subsequently, due to

some civil disputes arose between them, the Society

has filed a suit against the petitioner in

O.S.No.22/2014 and later, the said suit was ended in

compromise before the Court by filing compromise

petition under Order 23 Rule 3 of CPC and as per the

compromise agreed upon by the parties, the suit was

decreed. Subsequently, quarrel has been occurred

between the petitioner and the Society and again, the

Society had approached the Court by filing Execution

Petition in E.P.No.279/2018 for executing the decree.

During the pendency of the execution proceedings, the

Society has also filed a private complaint against the

present petitioner, who is the Judgment Debtor in the

execution proceeding. Now, the matter is pending

before the trial Court for adjudication.

4. Sri.Vivek S Reddy, learned Senior counsel

submits that when the Decree Holder has already filed

E.P.No.279/2018 for executing the decree, the question

of filing the private complaint against this petitioner

does not arise. The complainant has already

approached the Civil Court by filing civil case in

O.S.No.22/2014, which was ended in compromise and

subsequently, the decree has been passed. The

Execution case is also pending for adjudication. Such

being the case, registering the criminal case against

this petitioner is unwarranted. He has already released

19 sites to the Society and due to escalation of price,

they have been demanding extra money from the

Society, which was not paid and therefore, the litigation

is pending. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits

that he is ready to abide by the conditions that would

be imposed by this Court and is also trying to settle the

issues between the parties. The alleged offences are

not punishable with death or imprisonment for life.

Hence, prayed for grant of anticipatory bail.

5. Per contra, the learned HCGP seriously

objected the bail petition. The investigation is still

pending. He is required for custodial interrogation.

Hence, prayed for dismissal of bail petition.

6. Upon hearing the arguments of learned

counsel for the petitioner and the learned HCGP and on

perusal of the records, it is admitted fact that a private

complaint came to be filed by the Society on the

background of the civil dispute between them. It is not

in dispute that agreement entered into between the

petitioner and the society for developing the lands and

formation of sites and the petitioner is agreed to

receive Rs.14 crores from the Society and to allot sites.

Subsequent to the settlement, it was agreed that the

petitioner is required to give sites to the Society by

receiving money. But, after compromise decree, the

petitioner has not given sites as agreed before the

Court in the compromise decree.

7. Learned Senior Counsel submits that due to

getting approval from MUDA, there was a delay in

allotting the sites and due to escalation of price, he has

demanded some more money from the Society, which

was not paid. Still the society is required to pay some

money to the petitioner. There is no hurdle for the

petitioner to give sites to the Society. Learned counsel

for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has

already given sites to the Members of the Society by

executing the sale deeds. The sale deed copies are

also furnished. The learned counsel for the petitioner

submits that still some more sites are required to be

given by receiving money. Looking to the facts and

circumstances of the case and the civil suit was ended

in compromise and the execution petition is still

pending before the trial Court and the offence is not

punishable with death or imprisonment for life,

therefore, without expressing any opinion on the merits

of the case and by imposing stringent conditions, if

petitioner/accused No.1 is granted anticipatory bail, no

prejudice would be caused to the case of the

prosecution. Hence, I pass the following:

ORDER

The criminal petition is allowed.

The respondent-police is directed to release

petitioner/accused No.1 on bail in the event of his

arrest in Crime No.32/2019 registered by Nazarbad

Police Station, Mysore (now pending on the file of III

Additional Senior Civil Judge and C.J.M, Mysuru in

C.C.No.126/2020) for the offences punishable under

Sections 121B, 420, 460 read with Section 34 of Indian

Penal Code, subject to the following conditions:-

i) The petitioner shall execute personal bond in a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) with a surety for likesum to the satisfaction of the Magistrate/Investigating Officer;

ii) He shall surrender before the Investigating Officer within 15 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order;

iii) He shall not indulge in similar offences;

iv) He shall not tamper the prosecution witnesses directly or indirectly;

v) He shall be deemed to be in custody for the purpose of recovery under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act; and

vi) He shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when called for the purpose of investigation; and

If any of the conditions are violated, the

prosecution is at liberty to file an application for

cancellation of bail.

Sd/-

JUDGE

NBM