JUDGMENT/ORDER

V Srishananda, J. - Heard Sri Y.S. Prakash, learned counsel for the petitioners, and Sri S. Vishwamurthy, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State.

2. Present petition is filed under Section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1908, with the following prayer:

'WHEREFORE, the petitioners above named most respectfully prays that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to enlarge them on anticipatory bail in Crime No.70 of 2022 of Respondent-Basaveshwara Nagar Police Station pending before 4th Additional Metropolitan Magistrate at Bengaluru (4th ACMM) against the petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 506, 504, 406, and 420 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, on such terms and conditions that this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper to grant in the circumstances of the case to meet the ends of justice."

3. The brief facts of the case are as under:

A complaint came to be filed by Sri A.M.R. Veeraiah, S/o. A.M.R. Kottura Basayya at Basaveshwara Nagar Police Station, Bengaluru, in Crime No.70 of 2022 for the offences punishable under Sections 506, 504, 406 and 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, against the petitioner and another person.

4. The gist of the complaint averments reveals that, there was a Memorandum of Understanding in respect of a land in Survey No.26/4 measuring 1 acre 16 guntas in Ammanikere Village, Kasaba Hobli, Devanahalli Taluk, and in respect of the same, there was serious differences between the parties and a original suit also came to be filed in Original Suit No.84 of 2022.

5. Soon after the petitioners came to know about filing of the present case, they approached the District Court, Bengaluru, with a prayer for anticipatory bail, which was turned down by the learned District Judge, by order dated 13-5-2022 in Criminal Miscellaneous No.4682 of 2022. Thereafter, the petitioners are before this Court.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners, reiterating the grounds urged in the bail petition, vehemently contended that the matter is civil in nature and in order to coerce the petitioners to agree for illegal demand, a false criminal case has been filed and therefore, sought for grant of anticipatory bail.

7. Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader opposes the bail petition.

8. In the light of the rival contentions, this Court perused the material on record meticulously.

9. Admittedly, Memorandum of Undertaking is executed in the year 2014. If at all, there is any truth in the allegation found in the complaint, what the complainant was doing all these years is a question that exposes the hollowness in the case of the prosecution at least for the time being.

10. Anyway, whether the allegations in the complaint are true or not is to be investigated by the Investigating Agency. Limited period of custodial interrogation is also necessary to unearth the truth in the complaint averments. Admittedly, the petitioners are not available to the Investigation Agency on and from the date of registering the complaint and even after the dismissal of anticipatory bail by the learned Sessions Judge.

11. Thus, directing the petitioners to join the Investigating Agency and co-operate with the investigation would meet the ends of justice. Accordingly, pass the following:

ORDER

i. Criminal petition is allowed;

ii. Petitioners are directed to appear before the Investigation Officer on 5-4-2023 at 10:00 a.m.;

iii. Investigation Officer is at liberty to take the accused-petitioners to custody and complete the custodial interrogation on the same day, before 6:00 p.m. and thereafter, enlarge the petitioners on bail by executing a bond in a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- each (Rupees one lakh only) with two sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the Investigation Officer;

iv. Petitioners shall co-operate with the Investigating Agency by furnishing their hand writings, signatures, etc.;

v. Petitioners shall mark their attendance before the Investigation Agency every alternate Sun