Karnataka High Court
Vijay S/O Raghavendra Shinde vs The State Of Karnataka By on 9 September, 2022
Author: Shivashankar Amarannavar
Bench: Shivashankar Amarannavar
-1-
CRL.P No. 102314 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 102314 OF 2022
BETWEEN:
VIJAY S/O RAGHAVENDRA SHINDE
AGE. 45 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS,
R/O. RAJIV GANDHI NAGAR,
TQ. AND DIST. GADAG-582101
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. GANAPATHI M. BHAT, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY ITS POLICE INSPECTOR,
GADAG CEN POLICE STATION,
REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT BUILDING, DHARWAD-011
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. PRASHANTH V. MOGALI, HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 439 OF CR.P.C.,
SEEKING TO ALLOW THE PETITION AND ENLARGE THE
PETITIONER/ACCUSED ON REGULAR BAIL IN GADAG CEN P.S.
CR.NO.29/2022 PENDING ON THE FILE OF COURT OF
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, GADAG FOR AN
OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/S 420 OF IPC AND SECTION 21(3)
OF BANNING OF UNREGULATED DEPOSIT SCHEMES ACT, 2019.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
-2-
CRL.P No. 102314 of 2022
ORDER
This petition is filed by the accused under Section 439 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Cr.P.C.', for brevity) seeking bail in Crime No.29/2022 of Gadag CEN Police Station registered for an offence punishable under Section 420 of The Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as the 'IPC', for brevity) and Section 21(3) of the Banning of Unregulated Deposit Schemes Act, 2019 (hereinafter referred to as the 'BUDS Act', for brevity).
2. The case of the prosecution is that, one Santhosh Mutagar son of Prabhakar filed a complaint stating that, with his consent, the petitioner, who was running Shri Puttaraj Finance Corporation, Gadag, succeeded in taking deposit of Rs.10,00,000/- and 407.07 grams of gold on 01.10.2020 by executing a document with two sureties. The complainant, when he wanted that -3- CRL.P No. 102314 of 2022 money, went along with his mother to the petitioner seeking return of money and gold but the petitioner was postponing periodically on one or the other ground and finally on 23.4.2022, the complainant visited the office of the petitioner but someone was running a different shop in that premises and they told that, already the petitioner left the office and therefore, they visited his house at Rajiva Gandhi Nagar but the house was also closed and failed to gather proper information from neighbours. Therefore, he lodged a complaint which came to be registered in Gadag CEN Police Station Crime No.29/2022 for the aforesaid offences against the petitioner. The petitioner came to be arrested on 27.07.2022 and he is in judicial custody. The petitioner filed bail application and the same came to be rejected by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Gadag, by order dated 05.08.2022. Therefore, the petitioner is before this Court seeking bail.
-4-CRL.P No. 102314 of 2022
3. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent- State.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the offence alleged against the petitioner are not punishable with death or imprisonment for life. The maximum sentence that can be imposed is 10 years and fine of Rs.5,00,000/-. It is his further submission that the petitioner has money lending licence for the period from 01.04.2006 to 31.3.2011 and also for the period from 01.04.2021 to 31.03.2026. It is his further submission that the petitioner is suffering from heart ailment and he requires treatment. With this, he prayed to allow the petition.
5. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader would contend that the petitioner has cheated the complainant by not returning the -5- CRL.P No. 102314 of 2022 deposit amount and gold and closed his finance and absconded. It is his further submission that the investigation revealed, the petitioner has collected Rupees ten crores of deposit from the public and closed the finance and absconded. Looking to the amount involved in the matter, the case has been referred to the CID for investigation. The police during investigation have seized the vehicles and gold worth Rs.10,00,000/- and 20,49,000/- respectively. As investigation is under progress, if the petitioner is granted bail, he will hamper the investigation and tamper the prosecution witnesses. With this, he prayed to reject the petition.
6. Having regard to the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader, this Court has gone through the averments of the complaint, FIR, remand application and the order passed by the Sessions Court.
-6-CRL.P No. 102314 of 2022
7. The accusation against this petitioner in the complaint is that, he has taken deposit of Rs.10,00,000/- and gold of 407.07 grams from the complainant and did not return and cheated by closing the finance and also left his house. FIR came to be registered for the offence under Section 420 of IPC and Section 21(3) of BUDS Act. During the course of investigation, after arrest of the petitioner, two vehicles worth Rs.10,00,000/- and 9 golden ornaments worth Rs.20,49,000/- have been seized. As per the submission of the Government Pleader, the petitioner/accused has collected Rs.10,00,00,000/- and has cheated the general public. Looking to the involvement of the huge amount and cheating the general public, the matter is now referred to the CID for investigation. The Investigating Agency now has to ascertain what is the total amount cheated by this petitioner/accused and what are his transaction with the other persons. As per the investigation, the petitioner/accused is -7- CRL.P No. 102314 of 2022 having connection with the persons in Maharashtra and Telangana. The offence alleged against the petitioner under Section 420 of IPC is punishable with imprisonment up to 7 years and offence under Section 31(3) of BUDS Act is punishable with imprisonment for not less than 3 years and may extend to 10 years and fine of Rs.5,00,000/-. As investigation is still in progress, at this stage, the petitioner is not entitled for grant of bail. If the petitioner is granted bail, there are every chances of he hampering the investigation. Therefore, at this stage, when the investigation is in progress, the petitioner is not entitled for grant of bail.
Accordingly, the criminal petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE kmv