Sri. Ather Khan vs State Of Karnataka on 29 January, 2014

[Cites 3, Cited by 7]

Karnataka High Court

Sri. Ather Khan vs State Of Karnataka on 29 January, 2014

Bench: R.B Budihal

                              1


 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

       DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF JANUARY 2014

                           BEFORE

        THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BUDIHAL R.B

            CRIMINAL PETITION No.6448/2013


BETWEEN:

Sri. Ather Khan,
S/o. Sri. Akbar Khan,
Aged about 41 years,
Residing at No.325,
Haneef Mohalla,
4th Cross, Nagamangala,
Mandya District-571 432.                   .. PETITIONER

(By Sri. Venkatesha P. Sharma, Adv.)


AND:

State of Karnataka,
By Nagamangala Town Police,
Nagamangala-571 432.                       .. RESPONDENT

(By Sri. K. Nageshwarappa, HCGP)


      This criminal petition is filed under Section 438 of the
Cr.P.C. praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event
of his arrest in Cr. No.102/2013 of Nelamangala P.S.,
Mandya, for the offences punishable under Sections 417 and
420 of IPC, etc.

     This petition coming on for Orders this day, the Court
made the following :
                                2



                            ORDER

This petition is filed by the petitioner-accused under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. seeking a direction to the respondent police that in the event of his arrest, he be released on bail of the offences punishable under Sections 417 and 420 of IPC registered in respondent Police Station Crime No.102/2013.

2. I have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner-accused and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State.

3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner, during the course of the arguments, submitted that the prosecution has not placed any material to show as to the date on which amount was given to the petitioner by the persons, who are said to have given the amount for getting profit out of sale of second hand car. He submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case and he is innocent. He has not at all committed the alleged offence. He further submitted that by imposing reasonable conditions, the petitioner may be admitted to bail.

4. As against this, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State, during the course of the arguments, submitted that the petitioner has received amount from the persons assuring that he will pay 50% profit, out of the sale proceeds of the second hand car and thereby, he committed the offence of cheating. He submitted that the matter is still under investigation and at this stage, the petitioner cannot be released on bail.

5. I have perused the averments made in the bail petition, FIR, complaint and the order passed by the lower Court on the bail application. Perusal of the averments made in the complaint, though establishes that the amount was given to the petitioner, but there is no mention as to on which date the amount was given to him. The averments stated in the complaint indicates that it is nothing but an oral agreement between the petitioner and the person who is said to have given the amount for getting profit out of sale of second hand car. The transaction appears to be civil in nature. Apart from that, the offences alleged are triable by the Court of Magistrate and they are not exclusively 4 punishable for death or imprisonment for life. Though in the petition, it is stated by the petitioner that he would pay amount on 15.6.2013, but he has not at all paid the said amount on the particular date. The complaint was also not lodged immediately. Therefore, looking to the materials on record, I am of the opinion that it is a fit case to exercise discretion in favour of the petitioner

6. The petition is allowed. The respondent police are directed to release the petitioner on bail in the event of their arrest for the offences punishable under Sections 417 and 420 of IPC registered in Crime No.102/2013, subject to the following conditions:

I. The petitioner shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) and shall offer one surety for the likesum to the concerned Magistrate Court. II. The petitioner shall appear before the investigating officer for the purpose of interrogation, whenever called upon to do so.

III. The petitioner shall not intimidate or tamper with prosecution witnesses, directly or indirectly.

IV. The petitioner shall appear before the concerned Magistrate Court within thirty days from the date of this order and shall execute personal bond as well as surety bond.

Sd/-

JUDGE Cs/-

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court