Karnataka High Court
Veerabhadraiah H S/O Veeraiah H. vs The State Of Karnataka on 13 February, 2020
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2020 KAR 259
Author: Suraj Govindaraj
Bench: Suraj Govindaraj
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2020
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.102592/2019
BETWEEN:
VEERABHADRAIAH H.
s/O: VEERAIAH H.,
AGE: 51 YEARS,
R/O: VEERABADRESHWARA NILAYA,
15TH WARD, CHINTAMANI MATH ROAD,
BEHIND LADIES HOSTEL,
AMARAVATHI HOSAPETE,
DISTRICT BALLARI.
......PETITIONER
(BY SRI.SRINIVAS.B.NAIK, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH TOWN PS HOSAPETE,
REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH, DHARWAD.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SMT. SEEMA SHIVA NAIK, HCGP)
2
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 438 OF CR.P.C, PRAYING TO GRANT
ANTICIPATORY BAIL TO THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED
NO.2 (IN THE EVENT OF HIS ARREST) IN RESPECT OF
HOSPET TOWN POLICE STATION CRIME NO.108/2019
REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER
SECTIONS 121B, 406, 420, 468, 471 R/W 34 OF IPC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioner is before this Court being aggrieved by the order dated 13.12.2019 passed by the III Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Ballari (sitting at Hosapete) in Crl.M.P.No.5370/2019 for the offences punishable under Sections 121(B), 406, 420, 468, 471 r/w 34 of IPC.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the complainant is a contractor, the petitioner who is accused No.2 and the complainant know each other. On 12.06.2014, the petitioner had approached the complainant and informed him that Tata Harrier 3 vehicle is for sale and his friend intends to sell the same. The complainant agreed to purchase the same and requested the petitioner to share the details of the vehicle. The petitioner is alleged to have stated that the vehicle was near Amaravati Guest House and he would show the vehicle and introduce the owner there of.
3. Since the complainant was interested in buying the vehicle he went along with the petitioner. The petitioner introduced him to one person by name Bishal Sunar/accused No.1. After seeing the vehicle the complainant and said Bishal Sunar/accused No.1 negotiated the price and fixed the same at Rs.17 Lakhs. The complainant thereafter verified the documents and agreed to purchase the vehicle.
4. It is alleged that the complainant transferred about Rs.13 Lakhs to Bishal Sunar/accused No.1 and 4 as per the instructions of accused No.1 Rs.4 Lakhs was paid through cash to the petitioner at which point of time accused No.1 was also present. After the said transaction the necessary documents were handed over to the complainant.
5. When the complainant on 18.07.2019 went to the RTO Office at Hosapete to get the no objection certificate, he was informed that there is objection from HDFC Bank, Bengaluru Branch, when the complainant tried to contact the said Bishal Sunar/accused No.1, he could not track him.
6. The complainant approached the petitioner, the petitioner assured him of getting the vehicle transferred in the name of the complainant.
7. On 19.07.2019, at about 6.00 p.m., when the complainant was in his house, the Police Inspector of Indira Nagar Police Station, Bengaluru served a notice 5 on the complainant in respect of crime No.162/2019 and seized the vehicle from the possession of the complainant. The complainant verified the documents with the concerned authority and came to know that the petitioner and other accused have colluded with each other and with an intention of cheating have created false and fabricated documents and have sold the vehicle by suppressing the true facts. It is on the basis of the said complaint that a case in Crime No.108/2019 was registered.
8. The petitioner/accused No.2 approached III Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Ballari seeking for bail, the said Court rejected the same by holding that there are serious allegations which have been made as regards fabrication of documents, forgery etc. The petitioner being a car broker had approached the complainant with a proposal to sell the car. Accused No.1 was a Bank Employee, accused Nos.3 and 4 were 6 Bank and RTO officials and they were acting in concert as a gang to cheat unwary purchasers. The allegations which have made in the complaint shows the direct involvement of all the accused in the crime. Taking into account the investigation is under progress and other accused are not available to the Investigation Officer, the application for bail came to be rejected.
9. Sri Srinivas B.Naik, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is before this Court contending that the petitioner had only introduced the complainant to accused No.1 who had approached him to find a broker for a car that he intended to sell. The petitioner is not part of any conspiracy or part of any gang. The petitioner has been carrying on his business in Ballari and there are no other cases filed against the petitioner.
7
10. The complainant had also initiated the proceedings in O.S.No.246/2019 which is pending and therefore the matter being civil in nature, the petitioner ought to be enlarged on bail. The petitioner would comply with any conditions that may be imposed by this Court.
11. Learned HCGP opposes the grant of bail in the above matter contending that there are serious allegations which have made. The petitioner and other accused have acted in concert and there are allegations that they have together organized themselves to cheat unwary purchasers.
12. Having heard both the counsels and having perused the complaint and the specific allegations which have made against the petitioner, it is seen that the petitioner who is a car broker in the usual course of his business had introduced the complainant to 8 accused No.1 who intended to sell his car. Thereafter the complainant is said to have verified the documents and purchased the car. Admittedly, the petitioner being a broker his part was limited to introduction of parties. On enquiry, as regards the nature of crime No.162/2019, Sri Srinivas Naik, learned counsel has been able to obtain the FIR thereon and has produced the same, which indicates that the said complaint has been filed against the accused No.1 for the offence of forgery i.e. forging the documents pertaining to the aforesaid car.
13. On the above, it cannot now be stated that the petitioner is involved in the crime. Therefore, the petitioner deserves benefit of doubt and he is required to be enlarged on bail, if and when arrested. Hence, I pass the following;
9
ORDER The anticipatory bail petition filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. is allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in the event of his arrest in Crime No.108/2019 pending on the file of the III Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Ballari (sitting at Hosapete) in Crl.M.P.No.5370/2019, on the following conditions:
i. The petitioner shall appear and surrender before III Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Ballari (sitting at Hosapete) within ten days from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order and shall furnish a personal bond for a sum of Rs.3,00,000/-
with surety for the likesum to the
satisfaction of the said court.
ii. The petitioner shall appear before the trial
court regularly on the appointed dates;10
iii. The petitioner shall furnish list of immovable property held by him to the said Court.
iv. The petitioner shall not tamper with evidence or cause any threat to any of the prosecution witness/s in any manner.
If any of the above conditions are violated the above order shall stand automatically cancelled.
Sd/-
JUDGE msr