- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:12019 CRL.P No. 1394 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 1394 OF 2025 BETWEEN: RASHMI C/O RAVI KUMAR AGE 34 YEARS R/AT NO.4 1ST FLOOR 23RD MAIN, 16TH CROSS BTM LAYOUT, VTC BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK BANNERGATTA ROAD POST BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT. …PETITIONER (BY SRI KHOT ARJUN RAMA, ADV.) AND: STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY PSI DEVANAHLLI POLICE STATION THROUGH, STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, B'LORE - 01. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI VINAY MAHADEVAIAH, HCGP) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 438 CR.PC (FILED U/S 482 BNNS) PRAYING TO GRANT THE ANTICIPATORY BAIL IN FAVOR OF THE PETITIONER DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT POLICE IN THE EVENT OF ARREST OF PETITIONER BY THE RESPONDENT POLICE IN CRIME NO.0102/2024 REGISTERED WITH THE RESPONDENT DEVANANHALLI POLICE, FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 420 OF IPC AND PENDING FOR CONSIDERATION ON THE FILE OF THE CJ AND JMFC AT DEVANAHALLI. Digitally signed by NANDINI MS Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:12019 CRL.P No. 1394 of 2025 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY ORAL ORDER 1. Accused no.2 in Crime No.102/2024 registered by Devanahalli Police Station, Bengaluru City, for the offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC, is before this Court under Section 482 of BNSS, 2023, seeking anticipatory bail. 2. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 3. FIR in Crime No.102/2024 was registered Devanahalli Police Station, Devanahalli Police Station, Bengaluru City, for the aforesaid offence against Vinay and the petitioner herein based on the first information dated 23.05.2024 received from Ashwathanarayana S/o late Tirumalappa. Apprehending arrest in the said case, petitioner had filed Crl. Misc. No.15005/2025 before the jurisdictional Sessions Court, which was rejected on 10.01.2025. Therefore, she is before this Court. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a married lady and the dispute is civil in nature. He submits that the petitioner was totally unaware of the - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:12019 CRL.P No. 1394 of 2025 transaction and her actual name is Roopa. He submits that petitioner is ready and willing to cooperate with the police for the purpose of investigation. Accordingly, he prays to allow the petition. 5. Per contra, learned HCGP has opposed the petition. He submits that huge amount of Rs.1,75,00,000/- has been transferred to the bank account of the petitioner which she has not explained. He also submits that there is similar case registered against the petitioner in Crime No.149/2023 by Devanahalli Police Station. Therefore, custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required. Accordingly, he prays to dismiss the petition. 6. Perusal of the first information which has resulted in registering FIR in the present case would go to show that the accused persons had represented to the first informant that they were the absolute owners of property bearing Sy. No.7 measuring 4 acres 25 guntas situated at Jala Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk, and had induced the first informant to enter into an agreement for sale in respect of the said property for a sum of Rs.3 Crores and towards advance sale consideration, they - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:12019 CRL.P No. 1394 of 2025 had received a total sum of Rs.1,75,00,000/- from him. The entire amount of Rs.1,75,00,000/- has been allegedly paid by the first informant through bank transactions. It is the specific allegation that thereafter sale deed of the property in question was created in the name of third parties by the accused, and thereby they have cheated the first informant. 7. Petitioner has not explained the bank transaction under which the aforesaid amount of Rs.1,75,00,000/- was received in her bank account. Learned HCGP has brought to the notice of this Court that the petitioner is an accused in Crime No.149/2023 registered by Devanahalli Police Station, wherein similar allegations are made against her. Under the circumstances, I am of the opinion that the prayer made by the petitioner for grant of anticipatory bail cannot be granted since a prima facie case is found against her. Accordingly, petition is dismissed. Sd/- (S VISHWAJITH SHETTY) JUDGE KK