Karnataka High Court
Mr Shambu Babu Giri vs State Of Karnataka on 17 June, 2020
Author: S.Sunil Dutt Yadav
Bench: S. Sunil Dutt Yadav
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF JUNE, 2020
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. SUNIL DUTT YADAV
CRIMINAL PETITION No.1296/2020
BETWEEN:
Mr.Shambu Babu Giri,
S/o Vidanandagiri,
Aged about 40 years,
No-5, Malepathan,
Pokar City, Kaski,
Nepal - 33709.
...Petitioner
(By Sri.M.T.Nanaiah, Senior Advocate for
Sri.Rajat Subramanyam, Advocate)
AND:
State of Karnataka,
Represented by
Special Public Prosecutor,
High Court of Karnataka,
Chikkajala Police Station,
Bangalore - 560 001.
...Respondent
(By Sri.Vinayaka V.S., HCGP)
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 439 of
Cr.P.C. praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in
2
Cr.No.95/2019 of Chikkajala P.S., Bengaluru City For
the offence P/U/S 420, 370 read with 34 of IPC.
This Criminal Petition coming on for Orders, this
day, the Court made the following:
ORDER
The petitioner is seeking to be enlarged on bail pursuant to his arrest with respect to proceedings in Crime No.95/2019 for the offences punishable under Sections 370, 420 read with Section 34 of IPC.
2. The case of the prosecution is that information was received that the petitioner and another had collected amount from various innocent persons stating that job would be arranged for at Maldives and raid was conducted in Green Leaf International comforts and they found the petitioner and gathered information. It is further submitted that accused Nos.1 and 2 had sent one Bahaddur and Padam Bahaddur to Maldives who were then sent back as there was no work permit. 3 Accordingly, complaint came to be registered in Crime No.95/2019.
3. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the facts even if taken to be true make out a case only as regards Section 420 of IPC. This submission is made without prejudice to his contention that petitioner is innocent of the offence and has nothing to do with the role of the other accused against whom grave allegations are made. Investigation is completed and charge sheet is filed. It is further submitted that prima-facie the material on record does not make out any case for attracting Section 370 of IPC, in light of the fact that ingredients of Section 370 of IPC requires satisfaction with specific reference to the ingredients as per the explanation. It is further submitted that the petitioner is in custody since 19.10.2019 and hence, his application deserves to be considered. 4
4. Learned High Court Government Pleader would point out that fact that two prospective employees were sent to Maldives without work permit which would indicate that there is an intention of exploitation and hence, it cannot be said, ingredients of Section 370 of IPC are not made out and even otherwise it would be matter for trial. It is further submitted that the apprehension of the prosecution is that the petitioner may abscond and keep himself away from trial which ought to be taken note of.
5. Having heard both the sides it is to be noted that prima-facie there is some force in the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner that material on record does not make out a case as regards ingredients of Section 370 of IPC. Insofar as the allegations are concerned no doubt that there are allegations regarding commission of offence of cheating, noting that the offence under Section 420 of IPC is not punishable to death or 5 imprisonment for life and that petitioner has been in custody since 19.10.2019 it is a fit case to consider grant of bail. Insofar as the apprehension that the petitioner would abscond, such apprehension could be taken note of by imposing stringent conditions as is imposed in this order. Mere apprehension of absconding from trial cannot be a ground to deny the petitioner his release on bail, when such apprehension could be taken note of by imposing stringent conditions. The Sessions Court has rejected application noting that it was a successive bail application.
6. In the result, the bail petition filed by the petitioner under Sec. 439 of Cr.P.-C. is allowed and the petitioner is enlarged on bail in Crime No.95/2019 for the offences punishable under Sections 370, 420 read with Section 34 of IPC subject to the following conditions:
(i) The petitioner shall execute a personal bond of `1,00,000/- (Rupees one Lakh 6 only) with one surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the concerned Court.
(ii) The petitioner shall fully co-operate for the expeditious disposal of the trial.
(iii) The petitioner shall not tamper with evidence, influence in any way any witness.
(iv) In the event of change of address, the petitioner to inform the same to the concerned SHO.
(v) The petitioner shall not indulge in any criminal activities of like nature.
(vi) The petitioner to surrender the passport to the concerned Court which would be kept in safe custody.
(vii) The petitioner not to leave the
jurisdiction of the Court without
obtaining permission from the
concerned Magistrate.
7
(viii) The petitioner shall present himself and mark his attendance on 1st and 15th of every month before the concerned SHO.
(ix) Any violation of the aforementioned conditions by the petitioner, shall result in cancellation of bail.
Any observation made herein shall not be taken as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.
Sd/-
JUDGE NS