This petition is filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. praying

this Court to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of his

arrest in respect of Crime No.191/2021 registered by the HSR

Layout

Police

Station,

Bengaluru

City,

for

the

offences

punishable under Sections 419 and 420 of IPC.

2.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the

learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the

respondent-State and the second respondent appearing in

person.

3.

The factual matrix of the case is that the petitioner

and

the

second

respondent

are

the

brothers

and

the

complainant/second respondent had lodged the complaint

against the petitioner stating that his father passed away on

3

08.01.2019 and this petitioner is having all the bank documents

and after the death of their father, mother instructed to divide

the properties as three shares but this petitioner did not partition

the property and their mother also passed away on 14.07.2020

and the second respondent told to the petitioner that DEMAT

account has to be divided equally but this petitioner did not

agree for the same. However, on 21.09.2020, the second

respondent has received a call from the Airtel office requesting a

reason for the cancellation of his mobile number and the second

respondent replied that he has not given any representation for

the same hence, the second respondent came to know that this

petitioner by impersonating himself as second respondent in

disconnecting the mobile number and also made an attempt to

close the DEMAT account and also an allegation is made that he

got it transferred the amount to the tune of Rs.2,93,26,935/-.

Based on the complaint, the police have registered the case

against this petitioner for the aforesaid offences.

4.

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner

would submit that this petitioner has not committed any offence

as alleged in the complaint and there was a joint account by

4

himself, father and mother and after the death of the father and

mother, he had drawn the amount from the service account and

this petitioner is having two school going children and by

considering the allegations made in the complaint, the presence

of the petitioner is not required for investigation and the

petitioner is ready to cooperate with the investigating officer for

investigation and hence, he may be enlarged on bail.

5.

Per contra, the learned High Court Government

Pleader appearing for the State would submit that an allegation

made against this petitioner is that he made an attempt to

impersonate the second respondent by closing his Airtel mobile

number and also DEMAT account hence, there is serious

allegation of impersonation against the petitioner and prayed to

dismiss the petition.

6.

The complainant/second respondent appearing in

person would vehemently contend that this petitioner not only

withdrawn the money from his savings account but also

withdrawn the amount from his DEMAT account in a sum of

Rs.68,837/- which was there as on 12.10.2021 in the HDFC bank

and the dividend of the complainant/second respondent has

5

transferred to the savings account and the money belongs to

him and other than the said amount, this petitioner has already

withdrawn the money which was there in the account. The

second respondent also vehemently contend that an attempt is

made to close the Airtel mobile number by making an

impersonation himself as second respondent and the matter

requires to be probed with regard to the said fact and the

presence of the petitioner is required and there is no need to

grant anticipatory bail and unless his presence, the effective

probe cannot be done. Hence, opposes to grant bail in favour of

the petitioner.

7.

Having heard the respective counsel appearing for

the parties, second respondent and also on perusal of the

material available on record it discloses that after the death of

the father and mother, disputes arisen between the brothers and

the complainant is the brother of this petitioner and the learned

cou