Karnataka High Court
Eshwar Rao Mahadic vs The State Of Karnataka on 16 December, 2022
Author: H.P. Sandesh
Bench: H.P. Sandesh
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.11346/2022
BETWEEN:
ESHWAR RAO MAHADIC
S/O LATE D. GOVINDA RAO MAHADIC
AGED ABOUT 84 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO.1, ASHATHNAGARA
RMV EXTENSION, 2ND STAGE
GEDDALAHALLI
BENGALURU-560085 ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI RAJU C.N., ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY BAGALURU POLICE STATION
BENGALURU
REPRESENTED BY SPP
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BENGLURU-560001 ... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI K.K.KRISHNA KUMAR, HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 438
OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN
THE EVENT OF HIS ARREST IN CR.NO.231/2021 OF BAGALUR
P.S., SAMPIGEHALLI SUB-DIVISION, DEVANAHALLI FOR THE
OFFENCES P/U/S. 420, 447, 506, 120B R/W 34 OF IPC AND ETC.
2
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 12.12.2022 THIS DAY, THE COURT
PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This petition is filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest in Cr.No.231/2021 of Bagalur Police Station, Sampigehalli Sub- Division, Devanahalli for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 447, 506, 120B read with Section 34 of IPC.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State.
3. This is a successive bail petition and earlier this Court rejected the bail petition filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C in Crl.P.No.10044/2021 vide order dated 03.01.2022 against this petitioner and while dismissing the bail petition, this Court has given the reason that accused No.1 sold the property in favour of the complainant on 16.06.2021 and the matter was also taken up before the police as well as Assistant Commissioner and again 3 he has sold the property in favour of accused No.4 on 29.10.2021 and the earlier sale made by him was subsisting and hence, this Court held that knowing fully well that the sale deed was made in favour of the complainant, once again he has sold the property in favour of accused No.4 and hence, it is clear that on the inception of the said transaction, it clearly discloses the intention to cheat the complainant. Accused No.4 having the knowledge that the documents were standing in the name of the earlier purchaser/complainant, had purchased the property from accused No.1 hence, this Court comes to the conclusion that accused No.1 and 4 who had indulged in committing the offence of cheating are not entitled for the relief of anticipatory bail when the documentary evidence prima facie speaks that both of them had indulged in creating of documents. However, granted the bail in favour of accused No.2 and 3 holding that they are only signatories to the subsequent sale deed. Now, the present petition is filed again seeking the relief of anticipatory bail by accused No.1.
4
4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would vehemently contend that actually this petitioner was not cheated and this petitioner also filed the complaint regarding cheating on him and also further contended that his signature was obtained only in the release deed and on the date of the registration of the document, he was not very much present but he was only present on 05.05.2021 on that day, the document was not registered it was only executed. It is further submitted that the petitioner is ready to refund the amount but the complainant is not coming forward to receive the same.
5. The counsel also filed a memo along with the copy of the cheque, sale deed details and document wherein the cheque bearing No.000242 dated 01.01.2022 was issued in favour of this petitioner for a sum of Rs.1,24,84,890/- and anther cheque bearing No.000243 dated 01.01.2022 was issued in favour of this petitioner for a sum of Rs.1,20,15,110/- and account payee pay orders were given and also the counsel brought to notice of this Court that the absolute sale deed was dated 05.05.2021 and the same was registered on 16.06.2021 and hence, it is clear 5 that on the date of the registration of the document, this petitioner was not present.
6. Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State would submit that the earlier sale deed was for the tune of Rs.2,75,00,000/- and amount was received and sale consideration also passed and subsequently though allegedly he comes to know about the earlier registration of the property on 21.10.2021 and claims that he has given the complaint against the complainant but on 29.10.2021, again he has sold the very same property to the tune of Rs.6,00,57,625 and the said amount was received by way of cheque as well as RTGS hence, the very contention of the counsel that he was not having the knowledge and not committed an offence of cheating cannot be accepted.
7. Having heard the respective counsel and also on perusal of the material available on record it is clear that this is a successive bail petition and this Court while rejecting the bail petition under Section 438 of Cr.P.C formed an opinion that this petitioner had indulged in executing the sale deed for a sale 6 consideration and once again executed the sale deed in favour of accused No.4 and when those materials are apparent on record and the documentary evidence also against the petitioner, this Court comes to the conclusion that this petitioner who had indulged in committing the offence of cheating along with accused No.4, not entitled for relief of anticipatory bail. It is also noted that earlier, an amount of Rs.2,75,00,000/- was received and subsequently in the another sale deed, an amount of Rs.6,00,57,625/- was received and this Court already comes to the conclusion that this petitioner is not entitled for the bail under Section 438 of Cr.P.C and in a successive bail petition, this Court cannot again form an opinion that this petitioner is entitle for bail and the relief is also sought under Section 438 of Cr.P.C and there is no changed circumstances. Now the investigation is completed and charge-sheet is also filed against this petitioner and Investigating Officer has collected the material during the course of the investigation after recording the statement of the witnesses and also received sale consideration twice with an intention to cheat at the inception hence, I do not find any 7 grounds to enlarge the petitioner on bail in a successive bail petition filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C.
8. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following:
ORDER The bail petition is rejected.
Sd/-
JUDGE SN