1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 4^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. NATARAJAN

CRIMINAL PETITION No.8795/2021

BETWEEN:

1. MR. RAHUL TONSE,

@ RAHUL SHETTY,

S/O RAMAKRISHNA,

AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,

2. MR. RAMAKRISHNA,

S/O NAGESH RAO,

AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,

3. SMT. RAGESHWARI,

W/O RAMAKRISHNA,

AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,

ALL R/AT NO. 107, 7^TH

CROSS, 30^TH MAIN,

BANASHANKARI III STAGE,

K.G. MEDICAL COLLEGE

BENGALURU - 560 085

...PETITIONERS

(BY SRI. SAPPANNAVAR BASAVARAJ SHIVAPPA FOR

SRI. K. CHANDRAMOHAN, ADVOCATES)

AND:

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,

INDIRANAGAR PS, BENGALURU,

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 THEIR ARREST IN

CR.NO.215/2021 OF INDIRANAGAR P.S., BENGALURU CITY FOR

THE OFFENCE P/U/S.107, 506, 120-B, 406, 420, 354 R/W SEC.34

OF IPC.

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS

DAY THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING, THE COURT MADE THE

FOLLOWING:

O R D E R

This petition is filed by petitioners/accused Nos.1 to

3 under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. for granting them

anticipatory bail in Crime No.215/2021 registered by

Indiranagar Police, Bengaluru for the offences punishable

under Sections 107, 506, 120B, 406, 420, 354 read with

Section 34 of Indian Penal Code.

2.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners

and the learned High Court Government Pleader for the

respondent-State.

3.

The case of the prosecution is that the private

complaint

was

filed

by

one

complainant-

Smt. Sanjana Galrani to the 4^th Additional Chief

3

Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, under Section 200 of

Cr.P.C. The same was referred to the police under Section

156(3) of Cr.P.C., the same was received and the case

was registered by the Police for the above said offences.

It is alleged by the complainant that accused No.1 came

in contact with her and has been a good friend and well-

wisher to her and her family members and he has

projected himself as Managing Director to several well-

known

Casinos

in

Goa

and

Colombo

(Sri Lanka) and he came up with a plan for huge

investment, saying that the complainant would be

benefited largely and tried to convince for investment.

Subsequently,

on

the

guaranteed

returns,

the

complainant has invested huge amount of money with the

accused but later he has dodged the same and has not

returned the money. Inspite of several requests, the

petitioners/accused persons avoided meeting with the

complainant and cheated her and it is said that they have

abused her in a filthy language and also threatened her.

4

Therefore, she approached the police for lodging the

complaint, whereas the Police did not registered the case

against the petitioners, hence she was forced to file the

private complaint before the learned Magistrate and the

same was referred to Police. After registration of the case

by the police, the accused persons approached the

Sessions Court for grant of anticipatory bail, which came

to be rejected. Hence, they are before this Court.

4.

Learned counsel for the petitioners argued

that the petitioners are innocent of the alleged offences.

They have been falsely implicated in the case. They are

ready to abide by the conditions and also to face the

investigation. The alleged offences are not punishable

either with death or imprisonment for life. Hence, he

prayed for grant of anticipatory bail.

5.

Per

contra,

the

learned

High

Court

Government Pleader seriously objected the bail petition

and contended that the petitioners are required for

5

custodial interrogation.