Judgment:
1. Apprehending his arrest by Sheshadripuram police in connection with the case registered in Crime No.94/2005, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 463, 471, 420 of the Indian Penal Code, the petitioner has presented this petition under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking relief of anticipatory bail.
2. According to the prosecution, on the task of the complaint lodged by Deputy Secretary II, BDA. Bangalore, on 21.05.2005, the respondent - Police records of the aforesaid case against one Rajashekaraih and to a Deepak and took up investigation. After completing investigation, the Investigating Officer filed the. charge sheet in C.C.No.29464/2006 on the file of VDl Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore, against three persons namely M.Veeraiah as accused No.1, Puttaiah as accused No.2 and Riyaz, the petitioner herein as accused No.3 for the offences punishable under Sections 468 471 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code. In the charge sheet, accused No.1 and 3 were shown as absconding. It appears the learned Magistrate ordered splitting up of the case against this, petitioner on the ground that his presence could not be secured and split up charge sheet m C.C No.9273/2009 was registered. On fining to know of the filing of the charge sheet against him this petitioner approached the learned Sessions Judge, Bangalore, seeking relief of anticipatory bad. However, the said petition came to be rejected Therefore, the petitioner is before this Court.
3. The petition is opposed by the respondent - State.
4. I have heard both aides. Perused the records made available.
5. The allegations made m the complaint lodged by the Deputy Secretary II BDA, Bangalore on 21.05.2005 were that one Shri Rajashekharaish husband of CW.2 - Shanta and father of C.W.-3 -Deepak, while working as Executive Officer m Engineering Section of BDA by misusing his position and in connivance with other state of BDA, got site bearing No. 1002. 4th T Block, Jayanagara. Bangalore, allotted in the name of his minor son Deepak, some time during June 1962 and go, sale deed, in respect of the said site, in Savour of his son on 09.06.1992, Thus, the said Rajashekaraih by forging documents and falsely indicating that the said Deepak k major, got the site allotted thereby he has committed acts of cheating, forgery of documents etc. In the complaint as originally lodged, there was no allegation against this petitioner nor the name of this petitioner found a place therein. It is only while filing the charge sheet, this petitioner has been added as accused No.3. The allegations made in the charge sheet are that this petitioner' who is a real estate agent, colluding with accused Nos.1 and 2 who are employees of BDA, got sale deed in respect of the site No 1002, #4T Block Jayanagar, Bangalore, executed in favour of C.W.3 - Deepak on 09.06 1992 by obtaining Rs.7,90.000/- and thereby all the accused have cheated the BDA.
6. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the materials available on record at this stage, there are no reasonable grounds to believe that the petitioner is guilty; of the offences alleged in the charge sheet.
7. As noticed supra, the respondent - Police have filed the charge sheet in which this petitioner has been arraigned as accused No.3. The said case is pending before VHI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrates Bangalore and it appears non- bailable warrant m issued against this petitioner. Therefore, the apprehension of this petitioner that he is likely to be arrested is well founded. petitioner is entitled for the relief of anticipatory bail.
8. In view of the above discussions, the Hence, the petition is allowed. The respondent - Police are hereby directed to release the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest in connection with the case in Crime No.94/2005. on his executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs .50,000/- with one surety for the like sum to the satisfaction of the respondent - Police and subject to further conditions that,
i) Within 15 days from such arrest and release, as stated above, the petitioner shall appear before the Jurisdictional Magistrate, and upon such appearance, the jurisdictional Magistrate shall release this petitioner on bail en the conditions mentioned Herein.
ii) The petitioner shall appear on all hearing dates before the Trial Court without fail.
iii) The petitioner shall not tamper or terrorise the prosecution witnesses in any manner.