Karnataka High Court
Ravikumar Jarupula S/O Jarupula Jagya vs The State Of Karnataka on 23 November, 2021
Author: Shivashankar Amarannavar
Bench: Shivashankar Amarannavar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 23 R D DAY OF NOVEMBER 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR
CRIMINAL PETITION No.102004/2021
BETWEEN:
SHRI RAVIKUMAR JARUPULA
S/O JARUPULA JAGYA,
AGE: 28 YEARS ,
PROF ESSION: ART IST,
R/O: H.NO.2/15,
GANGARAM TANDA , NARAYANAPUR,
LINGAPUR, MEDAK ,
ANDRAPRADESH - 502 110.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. L. S . SULLAD, ADVOCAT E)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
THROUGH CEN POLICE STATION BALLARY,
REPRESENTED BY HCGP,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD - 580 001.
... RES PONDENT
(BY SRI.RAMESH B.CHI GARI, HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 438 OF CR.P.C., SEEKIN G TO DIRECT THE
RESPOND ENT POLI CE TO RELEASE THE
PETITIONER/ACCUSED ON BAIL I N EVENT OF HI S
ARREST IN BA LLARY CEN POLICE STATION CRIME
2
NO.36/ 2021 ALLEGING U/S 66(D) OF IT ACT AND 420
OF IPC DATED 24.08.2021 ON THE FILE OF 5 T H
ADDITIONAL JMFC, BA LLARY .
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR
ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The sole accused has filed this petition 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.36/2021 of Ballari CEN Police Station, registered for the offences punishable under Section 66D of the Information Technology Act, 2000 and under Section 420 of The Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as the 'IPC', for brevity).
2. The case of the prosecution is that one Shri.B. V. Subhash has filed the complaint in CEN Police Station stating that he is doing 3 catering business and he knows the petitioner/accused while doing catering business. It is further stated that the petitioner/accused is resident of Ballary and whenever he visits Ballary, he used to visit the house of the complainant and he used to tell him about FIRST coin crypto coin digital currency and he told him that he will trade the business and will get the profit and believing his words, the complainant has transferred Rs.8,61,000/- through his son's HDFC Bank account to petitioner's Axis Bank account, Hyderabad on different dates. Later, the complainant asked about the trading and profit money, at that time, the petitioner informed that he would invest his money in WYNK TRADE.COM business and also informed him that MD of that company is very close to him 4 as it is US company has trading office in Dubai and told him he will take him to Dubai company, where, how WYNK TRADE do their promotional work, by saying this, he made him to believe. It is further stated that on 04.07.2019 the complainant transferred the money from his Bitcoin account No.1Eb9WWFVFRqoKeYobHnoT3bBquKinV1bd8 to petitioner's Bitcoin account number through his mobile phone by using Bitcoin app and he has transferred currency to the Bitcoin account numbers on different dates as shown in the complaint i.e. total Bitcoin Crypto currency money of 0.80198318 and Indian currency value of Rs.7,30,800/-. It is further stated that when the complainant asked the petitioner about the invested money the petitioner did not return him and told not to worry and 5 website update is going on and the complainant went to Hyderabad couple of times and he called the petitioner over phone and the petitioner told him that he is out of station. He further stated that the complainant checked WYNK TRADE website online, it was not existing. Then he enquired with the petitioner and told the petitioner that he has cheated him and asked him to refund his money and therefore the petitioner has refunded the money of Rs.1,35,000/- on different dates to the bank account of the complainant and the petitioner is due to pay a sum of Rs.8,61,000/- and a Bitcoin currency. The said complaint came to be registered in Crime No.36/2021 of Ballary CEN Police Station for the offence under Section 66D of the Information Technology Act, 2000 and under Section 420 of 6 IPC. The petitioner, who is shown as accused in the FIR, apprehending his arrest has filed Crl.Misc.No.579/2021 seeking anticipatory bail and the same came to be rejected by the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Ballari, by order dated 21.09.2021. Therefore, the petitioner is before this Court seeking anticipatory bail.
3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the petitioner is innocent, he has not committed any offence as alleged and he has been falsely implicated in the case. The complainant is not a simple caterer but he is a multi-level marketing trader 7 and he has invested lot of money in Bitcoin and as on today, he is having 185 Bitcoins in his credit and he has transacted 808 times. It is his further submission that, trading of virtual currency is not a bar. The account stated in the complaint does not belong to the petitioner. The petitioner is a cinema actor. He is ready to assist the police in the investigation. The offences alleged against the petitioner are not punishable with death or imprisonment for life. With this, he prayed to allow the petition.
5. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader submits that the investigation is still in progress. The allegations against the petitioner are that he has received money from the complainant and cheated him and committed offence punishable 8 under Section 420 of IPC. The investigation is still in progress and if the petitioner is granted anticipatory 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 complaint, FIR and the order passed by the Sessions Court.
7. The accusation leveled against the petitioner in the complaint is that, he has received total sum of Rs.8,61,000/- in the year 2017 stating that he will invest in FIRST Coin Crypto Digital Currency. It is further 9 accusation that subsequently, at the instance of the petitioner, the complainant has transferred total sum of Rs.7,30,800/- to the Crypto Currency account mentioned in the complaint. In the complaint it is stated that the petitioner has returned only Rs.1,35,000/- and he his due to a sum of Rs.8,61,000/- to the complainant along with Bitcoin currency of 0.80198318 and cheated the complainant. The case of the complaint is based on the documents and electronic evidence. The offences alleged against the petitioner are not punishable with death or imprisonment for life. The petitioner is stated to be a cinema actor. There are no criminal antecedents of the petitioner. The petitioner has undertaken to co-operate with the police in the investigation. Whether the petitioner has cheated the 10 complainant is a matter of investigation and final report. The main objection of the prosecution is that if the petitioner is granted anticipatory bail, he will hamper the investigation and tamper the prosecution witnesses and flee from justice. The said objection 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 grant of anticipatory bail subject to certain terms and conditions. Hence, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER Criminal petition filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. is allowed. The petitioner/accused shall be released on bail in the event of his 11 arrest in Crime No.36/2021 of Ballary CEN Police Station subject to the following conditions:
i. Petitioner/accused shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Only) with one surety for the like sum to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer/Jurisdictional Court.
ii. The petitioner/accused shall voluntarily surrender before the Investigating Officer within fifteen days from today and execute personal bond.
iii. The petitioner/accused shall co-
operate with the investigation and
make himself available for
interrogation whenever required.
iv. The petitioner/accused shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any 12 witness acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any Police Officer.
v. The petitioner/accused shall not
obstruct or hamper the Police
investigation and not to play mischief with the evidence collected or yet be collected by the Police.
Sd/-
JUDGE R H & km v