The case of the prosecution is that on the complaint of one Ravikumar, Police Inspector, BDA Vigilance branch, alleging that the Commissioner of BDA said to possess received a Pen Drive that some officials of the BDA have joined with one Inder Kumar-accused No.2 and carried the allotment letters and official seals of BDA to the private office of accused No.2 and have created fake allotment letters within the name of the BDA for the sites situated at HBR and HRBR Layouts and also at Banashankari near Hosakerehalli Village. The Police registered a case and arrested accused No.2 on 04.12.2020 and remanded him to judicial custody. The Police also raided the office of accused No.2 at Cunningham Road, Bengaluru. They seized BDA allotment letters, seals, and other materials under the panchanama. The Police also arrested accused No.1, who is that the Deputy Secretary-3 working within the BDA, and remanded him to judicial custody.
Learned counsel for the petitioner- Dhanalakshmi (accused No.4 )seriously contended that the name of the petitioner wasn't within the least arraigned as accused in the FIR or almost seven remand applications, but all of a sudden, in the eighth remand application, her name was shown as accused No.14 and while filing the charge sheet, they need to show her as accused No.4 alleging that she has conducted some survey of the land in survey Nos.89, 90 and 91 of Hosakerehalli village, Bengaluru and therefore the report wasn't directly given to the BDA office, but an equivalent was given to accused No.2. Except for that allegation, there's no other allegation against her, and people documents were already seized by the Police within the office of accused No.2. Therefore, the learned counsel contended that her presence might not be required for the aim of any inquiry or custodial interrogation and she or he is prepared to abide by the conditions which will be imposed by this Court.
Learned senior counsel appeared for the petitioner accused No.2 contended that at the time of rejecting the sooner bail application, though the blotter was filed, an equivalent wasn't considered by this Court and liberty was granted to the present petitioner for approaching the court for filing fresh bail petition based upon the charge sheet and this Court categorically held that the court shall not be influenced by the observations made within the order. He further contended that the investigation is already completed and therefore the charge sheet has been filed. The petitioner is in custody for nearly quite six months. Most of the co-accused persons were granted regular bail and anticipatory bail by the court and therefore the Sessions Judge.
Upon hearing the arguments and on perusal of the records, it was revealed that accused No.1, the Deputy Secretary working in the BDA has prepared the fake allotment letters in the office of the accused in the names of false beneficiaries. There were 55 copies of allotment letters seized by the Police in the office of accused No.2. Accused Nos.1 and 3 and the presence of accused No.4 in the FIR were seen in the office of accused No.2.
Both the criminal petitions were allowed Criminal Petition filed by the petitioner-accused No.4 under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. was allowed and therefore the respondent-Police were directed to release the petitioner-accused No.4 on bail within the event of her arrest and Criminal Petition filed by the petitioner-accused No.2 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. were allowed and therefore the court was directed to release the petitioner-accused No.2 on bail registered by Seshadripuram police station, Bengaluru, for the offenses punishable under Sections 406, 409, 467, 470, 420, 471, 473, 472, 474, 475, 476, 120(B) and 511 of IPC.