Karnataka High Court
Shri. Shivappa S/O Ramu Dongare vs The State Of Karnataka on 23 August, 2022
Author: Shivashankar Amarannavar
Bench: Shivashankar Amarannavar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 23 R D DAY OF AUGUST 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR
CRIMINAL PETITION No. 102141 OF 2022
BETWEEN:
1. SHRI. S HIVAPPA S/O. RAMU D ONGARE
AGE: 63 YEARS ,
OCC: RETIRED HI GH S CHOOL TEACHER,
R/O. S.B.I . COLON Y, CHIKODI,
TQ. CHIKODI , DIST. BELAGAVI - 591201.
2. SHRI. RAJU S/O. S HIVAPPA DON GARE
AGE: 33 YEARS , OCC: CLASS-I CONT RACTOR,
R/O. S.B.I . COLON Y, CHIKODI,
TQ. CHIKODI , DIST. BELAGAVI- 591201.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI.SHIVRAJ S. BA LLOLI , ADV .)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH BA GALK OT CEN POLI CE STATION,
REPRES ENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
2
HIGH COURT OF K ARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH,
DHARWAD - 580 001.
... RES PONDENT
(BY SRI. PRAS HAN TH V. MOGA LI, HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 438
OF CR.P.C. SEEKI NG TO ALLOW THE PETITIONER AN D GRANT
THE PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS .2 AND 4 ON ANTICIPATORY
BAIL IN THE EVENT OF THEIR ARREST IN CONNECTI ON WITH
CRIME NO.16/ 2022 OF BAGA LKOT CEN POLICE STAT ION FOR
THE ALLEGED OFF ENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER S ECTION 420 OF
IPC, 1860 THE PETITIONERS BE DI RECTED TO BE RELEASED
ON BAIL BY T HE RESPOND ENT POLI CE.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE F OLLOWING:
ORDER
This petition is filed by accused Nos.2 and 4 under section 438 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Cr.P.C.', for brevity) seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.16/2022 of Bagalkot CEN Police Station registered for the offence punishable 3 under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as the 'IPC', for brevity).
2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioners and other accused were running an institution in the name and style as "Vaika Retail and Technology OPC Pvt. Ltd." and they have compelled the complainant and other people to invest money in the said institution with a false promise to double the invested amount. Believing which the complainant has invested certain amount in the said institution. It is his further submission that the petitioners and other accused have collected a sum of Rs.1,52,00,000/- from several people including the complainant and thereafter they have closed/shutdown the institution without returning the amount invested by the complainant and other people. The said complaint came to be registered in Crime No.16/2022 of Bagalkot CEN Police Station for the offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC. The petitioners were arrayed as accused Nos.2 and 4 in the FIR, apprehending their arrest have 4 filed Criminal Miscellaneous No.369/2022 seeking anticipatory bail and the same came to be rejected by the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Bagalkot by order dated 01.07.2022. Therefore, the petitioners are before this Court seeking anticipatory bail.
3. Heard the arguments of learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners would contend that the said Vaika Retail and Technology OPC Pvt. Ltd., has been established by accused No.1 and there is no role of these petitioners in the said company. The petitioners are neither employee nor director in the said company. It is his further submission that the petitioners have also invested money in the said company and accused No.1 used these petitioners to propagate the scheme of the company. The petitioners have not received any amount as alleged in the complaint from the customers. The offence alleged against these petitioners 5 is not punishable with death or imprisonment for life. The petitioners are ready to co-operate with the Police in investigation. With this, he prayed to allow the petition.
5. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader would contend that the investigation is still in progress. The offence alleged against these petitioners is 420 of IPC, punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years. It is his further submission that the Investigating Officer has recorded the statement of investors namely Basavaraj Allimatti, Bahubali S. Alagur and Rani B. Alagur. It is his further submission that the petitioners along with accused No.1 cheated the investors by closing down the institution and did not return the invested money. The petitioners are required for custodial interrogation. With this, he prayed to reject the petition.
6. Having regard to the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners and learned High Court Government Pleader, this Court has gone through the 6 averments of the complaint, FIR and the order passed by the Sessions Court.
7. As per the allegations in the complaint, the complainant and others have invested huge money of Rs.1,52,00,000/- in Vaika Ventures run by accused No.1. The said Vaika Ventures has been closed and accused No.1 and others did not return the invested money to the customers as promised. As per the allegations in the complaint, the petitioners were with the accused No.1 and they instigated the investors to invest money in the Vaika Ventures. As per the submission of learned counsel for the petitioners, the petitioners are also investors in the said Vaika Ventures and they have told regarding their investments in the said company. There is no allegation in the entire averments of the complaint that these petitioners are also director or employees of the said Vaika Ventures. In the said complaint, the details of payments made by the complainant and other investors into bank account or phone-pay or google-pay has been 7 specifically mentioned. Therefore, the petitioners are not required for any custodial interrogation. The offence alleged against these petitioners is not punishable with death or imprisonment for life. The maximum punishment provided for the said offence is imprisonment for seven years. The petitioners are ready to co-operate with the Police in investigation and to abide by any terms and conditions imposed by this Court. The main apprehension of the prosecution is that, if the petitioners are granted anticipatory bail, they will hamper the investigation and tamper the prosecution witnesses, can be met with by imposing stringent conditions.
8. In the facts and circumstances of the case and submission of the counsel, this Court is of the view that there are valid grounds for granting anticipatory bail subject to certain terms and conditions. Hence, I proceed to pass the following:
8
ORDER The petition filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. is allowed. Consequently, the petitioners/accused Nos.2 and 4 are ordered to be released on bail in the event of their arrest in Crime No.16/2022 of Bagalkot CEN Police Station, subject to the following conditions:
i. The petitioners shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Only) each with one surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer.
ii. The petitioners shall voluntarily appear before the Investigating Officer within fifteen days from this day and execute bail bond and furnish surety.
iii. The petitioners shall remain present before the Police Station concerned on every Sunday between 10.00 am to 6.00 p.m. and mark their presence for a period of three months or till filing of the final report whichever is earlier.
9iv. The petitioners shall co-operate in the investigation and make themselves available for interrogation whenever required.
v. The petitioners shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any witness acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any Police Officer.
vi. The petitioners shall not obstruct or hamper the police investigation and not to play mischief with the evidence collected or yet to be collected by the police.
Sd/-
JUDGE SMM