High CourtsSingle Bench(2025) 06 KAR CK 0206

John Baptist Misquith vs State By Sho Mangalore South Police Station, D.K. District, Represented By State Public Prosecutor High Court Of Karnataka Ambedkar Veedhi Bengaluru - 560001

Karnataka High Court, Principal Bench · Decided on 12 June 2025

HON’BLE JUDGES
Shivashankar Amarannavar, J
RESULT
Disposed Of
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Petition No. 7886 Of 2025 (438(Cr.PC) / 482(BNSS)

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

10 paragraphs · 458 words

S.R. Krishna Kumar, J

1.

This petition is filed by the petiitoner under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. seeking anticipatory bail in respect of an FIR in Crime No.181/2019 dated 21.08.2019 registered by the respondent - police, Bangalore, for offences punishable under Section 406, 417, 420, 465, 468, 471, 474 r/w 34 of IPC.

2.

The material on record discloses that the petitioner was not arraigned as an accused person in the said FIR, which was filed only against one Preetham – accused No.1, Vijay Nicolas Rebello – accused No.2 and Wilfred Mascarenhas – accused No.3 alleging that they colluded with the RTO officials for the purpose of obtaining a loan from Sriram Transport Finance Company Limited in a sum of Rs.8 lakhs and concocted certain documents in this regard so as to enable accused No.1 to purchase a car. Subsequently, the respondent – Police have not filed any charge sheet and instead are attempting to arrest the petitioner, who has preferred the present petition interalia contending that he had approached the trial court earlier in Crl.Misc.No.435/2025 for anticipatory bail, which was rejected vide order dated 03.06.2025 and as such, petitioner is before this Court by way of the present petition.

3.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Addl.SPP for the respondent - State and perused the material on record.

4.

A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the offences alleged are neither punishable with death nor imprisonment for life and in the light of the principles laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre vs. State of Maharastra – AIR 2011 SC 312, coupled with the undisputed fact that the petitioner was not named in the FIR, which was registered against the aforesaid 3 accused persons and that the petitioner is the RTO official, I am of the view that the petition deserves to be allowed and petitioner is entitled to be granted anticipatory bail, by imposing certain conditions.

5.

Accordingly, petition is allowed and anticipatory bail is granted to the petitioner, subject to the following conditions:-

(i) Petitioner shall be released on anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest in Crime No.181/2019 registered by the respondent - police, on his executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/-with one surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the arresting police officer.

(ii) He shall surrender before the jurisdictional police station within ten days from today and in such an event, the I.O. may orally interrogate him, if it is absolutely required. Soon after conducting interrogation, he shall release the petitioner on bail.

(iii) He shall not give threat to the prosecution witnesses in any manner.

(iv) He shall not involve himself in any criminal activities.