Karnataka High Court
Lalthan Mawia vs State Of Karnataka on 21 November, 2017
Author: R.B Budihal
Bench: R.B Budihal
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF NOVEMBER 2017
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BUDIHAL R.B.
CRIMINAL PETITION No.7807/2017
BETWEEN:
1. Lalthan Mawia
Aged about 35 years
S/o Dawngkapa
R/at No.48, Aizawl Venglai
Townwill, Aizawl Post
Aizawl District
Mijoram State-796 261.
2. Lian Khup @ Khup Boe
Aged about 32 years
S/o Dokhan Mung
R/at Hal Mark 93
Tedim Veng, New Lamka
Chenachandpur
Manipur, India-795 128. ..PETITIONERS
(By Smt. Haleema Ameen, Adv. for
Sri Vishwajith Shetty S, Adv.)
AND:
State of Karnataka
Ullal Police Station
Represented by the
State Public Prosecutor
High Court Buildings
Bengaluru-560 001. .. RESPONDENT
2
(By Sri K Nageshwarappa, HCGP)
This criminal petition is filed under Section 439 of
Cr.P.C. praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Cr.
No.244/2017 of Ullal P.S., Mangalore City for the offences
punishable under Sections 419, 417, 406, 420 read with
Section 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 Nos.1 and 2 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking their release on bail of the offences punishable under Sections 419, 417, 406, 420 read with Section 34 of IPC registered in respondent Police Station Crime No.244/2017. Later, the offence under Section 66 of the Information Technology Act came to be inserted in the case.
2. Brief facts of the prosecution case are that on 09.05.2017, the accused persons approached the complainant violet D' Souza in the name of her friend namely Goodson Wilfred, who is in London, and made the complainant to transfer a sum of Rs.21,58,200/- to their bank accounts, under the guise that such payment is 3 necessary for clearance procedure to receive a parcel allegedly containing foreign currency of 28,000 pounds and gift. The accused persons have used fake documents and e-mails to mislead the complainant and to defraud her. It is further alleged that during the course of investigation, the jurisdictional police have traced transfer of money from the account of the complainant to the bank accounts of the accused persons. Therefore the complainant lodged the complaint before Ullala Police Station. On the basis of the same, the case came to be registered by the respondent police.
3. I have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners-accused Nos.1 and 2 and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent- State.
4. Learned Counsel for the petitioners made submission that so far as the alleged offence under the provisions of Information Technology Act is concerned, the learned Counsel submitted that there is no material to 4 show that the petitioners have used the computers in committing the alleged offence. Referring to the voluntary statement, which is said to have recorded by the investigating officer, the learned Counsel made submission that even looking to the contents of the voluntary statement, it will not make out prima facie case as against the petitioners. Regarding IPC offences of forgery and creation of false documents are concerned, there is no material placed by the prosecution against the petitioners. No ATM card, cheque books of petitioners were seized during investigation. The learned Counsel further made submission that investigation of the case is completed and the charge sheet has been filed. The alleged offences are not exclusively punishable with death or imprisonment for life. Therefore, by imposing reasonable conditions, the petitioners may be admitted to bail.
5. Learned HCGP appearing the respondent opposed the petition submitting that looking to the prosecution material, the petitioners approached the 5 complainant inducing her to credit amount of Rs.21,58,200/- into their accounts. The petitioners were succeeded by their methods in forging and creating the false documents. Hence, there is prima facie case for committing the alleged offence for inducing the complainant to part with money and giving credit through RTGS to the account of the petitioners. The petitioners are the persons hail from the other State. If they are released on bail, they will abscond and put hurdles in the progress of the case and even, they may involve in committing such serious offences. Hence, the learned HCGP submitted that the petitioners are not entitled to be granted with bail.
6. I have perused the averments made in the bail petition, FIR, complaint and the other materials on record. I have also perused voluntary statement said to have been recorded by the investigating officer of both petitioners during investigation.
6
7. Looking to the prosecution material, they prima facie go to show inducement made by the petitioners to complainant to part with her money to the tune of Rs.21,58,200/- which was credited into account of these petitioners. They were succeeded in the game of fraud in cheating and committing frauds. Apart from that, as it is rightly submitted by learned HCGP, petitioner No.1 is from Mizoram State and petitioner No.2 is from Manipura State. If they are released on bail, looking to their conduct and the manner in which the alleged offences are said to have been committed and the material collected during investigation by the investigating officer in this regard, they may involve in such offences even under the Information Technology Act. They may abscond and put hurdles in the progress of the case. Therefore, I am of the opinion that it is not a fit case to exercise discretion in favour of the petitioners. The petition is accordingly rejected.
Sd/-
JUDGE Cs/-