JUDGMENT/ORDER

V Srishananda, J. - Heard Sri. Akarsh S.Kanade, learned counsel for Sri. Subhash Chandra Bose, for petitioner and learned HCGP for the respondent/State.

2. This petition is filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. with the following prayer:

'Wherefore, Petitioner humbly prays that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to release him on anticipatory bail, under section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure, in the event of his arrest, by the Respondent police, in Shivajinagar Police Station Crime No.0117/2022, for the offences punishable under sections in Cr.No.0117/2022, for the offences punishable U/Sec 206, 209, 424, 466, 34, 421, 420, 447, 452, 455, 468, 469, 471, 473, 474, 415, 441, 445, 463 of IPC., on the file of Hon'ble 29th ACMM Court, Bengaluru, in the interest of justice and equity.'

3. Smt. R.Umarani W/o D.Illangovan filed a private complaint on the file of the 29th Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Bengaluru in PCR No.56600/2022. Based on the said private complaint, an FIR came to be registered by the Shivajinagar Police Station on 14.10.2022 in Crime No.117/2022 for the offences punishable under Sections 206, 209, 424, 466, 34, 421, 420, 447, 452, 455, 468, 469, 471, 473, 474, 415, 441, 445 and 463 of IPC.

4. The gist of the complaint averments reveal that in respect of a property, there is civil dispute and the petitioner is appointed as a Court Commissioner and a wrong order has been given to the Court Commissioner for execution which was concocted and petitioner said to have executed the said order and therefore, he is also arraigned as a party accused in the case for the aforesaid offences. Attempt made by the petitioner to obtain an order for grant of anticipatory bail is turned down by the learned IV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Mayohall Unit, Bengaluru in Crl.Misc.No.25981/2022 by order dated 07.01.2023 and thereafter, the petitioner is before this Court.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the petition vehemently contended that the petitioner is not interested in any one of the parties in the alleged civil dispute and he has only acted as per the commission warrant and if the contents of the commission warrant itself is concocted for which the petitioner is no way responsible and sought for grant of anticipatory bail.

6. Per contra, learned HCGP opposes the bail on the ground that the petitioner ought to have been diligent enough to find out whether the commission warrant is duly issued by the Court or not and acting only on the basis of papers has resulted in miscarriage of justice and sought for rejection of bail.

7. Perused the material on record meticulously in view of the rival contentions of the parties.

8. On such perusal of the material on record, it is seen that the petitioner has executed the commission warrant said to have been issued by the duly constituted Civil Court. However, it is the case of the complainant that the said commission warrant itself is concocted and there are serious lapses in getting the commission warrant issued and therefore, prima facie, petitioner is also a party to the crime and sought for action.

9. Whether at all the petitioner has joined the hands of the successful party in getting the concocted commission warrant issued or not cannot be decided by this Court. It is for the Investigating Agency to investigate the matter and file appropriate report as is contemplated under Section 173 of Cr.P.C. Suffice to say that the material on record at this stage would depict that the petitioner is also not available for the Investigating Agency who is none other than a young practicing lawyer and directing him to join investigation and cooperate with the custodial investigation would meet the ends of justice.

10. Accordingly, desisting from holding a mini trial and further discussion on the merits of the matter, following order is passed:

ORDER

(i) The criminal petition is allowed;

(ii) Petitioner is directed to join the investigatio