Karnataka High Court
R Baskaran vs State Of Karnataka By on 19 June, 2017
Author: R.B Budihal
Bench: R.B Budihal.
:1:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF JUNE 2017
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BUDIHAL. R.B.
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.3965/2017
BETWEEN:
1. R BASKARAN
S/O RETNA PANDIAN
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
2. JACKLIN
W/O R BASKARAN
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
BOTH THE PETITIONERS ARE
R/AT: M/S ARUNACHAL EXPORT
AND TRADING, 93C/84/31F
RAJEEV NAGAR, 5TH STREET
TUTICORIN, TAMIL NADU-628002
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI DEVARAJ N AND
SRI SABARISH GANDHI, ADVOCATES)
AND
STATE OF KARNATAKA BY
KUMTA POLICE STATION
UTTARA KANNADA DISTRICT
REP BY SPP, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BANGALORE-560 001
... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI PRAVEEN K.UPPAR, HCGP)
:2:
THIS CRL.P.FILED U/S.438 CR.P.C. BY THE
ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONERS PRAYING THAT THIS
HON'BLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO ENLARGE THE
PETITIONERS ON BAIL IN THE EVENT OF THEIR ARREST
IN CR.NO.234/2016 (PCR.NO.156/2016) OF KUMTA P.S.,
UTTARA KANNADA DISTRICT FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S
415,417,418,420 R/W 34 OF IPC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS
DAY, THE COURT, MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This petition is filed by the petitioners-accused No.1 and 2 under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. seeking anticipatory bail, to direct the respondent Police to release the petitioners on bail in the event of their arrest of the alleged offences punishable under Sections 415, 417, 418, 420 read with Section 34 of I.P.C. registered in respondent Police Station Crime No.234/2016.
2. Brief facts of the case of the complainant that petitioners are traders by vocation and conduct business under the name and style M/s Arunachalam Export and Trading in Tuticorin, Tamilnadu. The petitioners are husband and wife. The complainant is a :3: trader in cashew nuts conducting business from Kumta in Uttara Kannada District. In the year 2015 through the accused Nos.3 and 4, the complainant came to know the petitioners and their business in importing cashew nuts from Africa. After meeting the petitioners and impressed by their business the complainant expressed his interest to buy the imported cashews from the petitioners and accordingly the complainant and the petitioners entered into a contract on 08-05-2015 for import of cashew nuts from Africa. Under the contract the complainant placed order for 800 metric tone of Raw Cashew with shell of Benin origin (African Cashew) and the transaction was valued at Rs.5,40,00,000/- out of which 10% advanced i.e Rs.54,00,000/- was paid to the petitioners through RTGS and it was agreed that the remaining 90% of the sale transaction will be transferred through online account after the entire shipment is received. The further allegation in the complaint that the petitioners though agreed for the :4: supply of the raw cashew, they have not transferred the same and they have committed the breach of the terms of the contract and thereby the complainant was not in a position to supply the same to his customers and thereby the reputation of the complainant came to be affected. Hence, the complainant alleged that the petitioners have committed the alleged offences.
3. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners-accused No.1 and 2 and also the learned HCGP appearing for the respondent- State.
4. I have perused the grounds urged in the bail petition, FIR, complaint and other materials produced along with the petition so also the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Karwar rejecting the bail application of the petitioners herein.
:5:
5. Looking to the materials placed on record so also the averments in the complaint, prima facie the transaction between the complainant and petitioners herein appears to be civil in nature. Apart from that the petitioners herein have contended that they have not at all committed the alleged offences, there is a false averments made in the complaint. The petitioners have contended in the petition that they are ready to abide by any conditions to be imposed by this Court.
6. Looking to the materials placed on record, the alleged offences are triable by the Magistrate Court and are not exclusively punishable with death or imprisonment for life. Hence, I am of the opinion that by imposing reasonable conditions the petitioner can be released on bail. Accordingly, petition is allowed. The respondent police are directed to enlarge the petitioners on bail in the event of their arrest in Crime :6: No.234/2016 registered for the above said offence, subject to the following conditions:
i. Each petitioner has to execute personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- and furnish one surety for the like sum to the satisfaction of the arresting authority.
ii. Petitioners shall not tamper with any of the prosecution witnesses directly or indirectly.
iii. Petitioners have to make themselves available before the I.O. for interrogation, as and when called for.
iv. Petitioners have to appear before the concerned Court within 30 days from the date of this order and to execute the personal bond and the surety bond.
Sd/-
JUDGE CLK