Karnataka High Court
Tukaram S/O Pandurang Patil vs The State Of Karnataka on 25 February, 2021
Author: K.Natarajan
Bench: K. Natarajan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 25th DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. NATARAJAN
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.100391 OF 2021
CONNECTED WITH
CRIMINAL PETITION NOS.100392 AND 100393 OF 2021
IN CRL.P. NO.100391/2021:
BETWEEN:
1. ARJUN
S/O. MALLAPPA MUNAVALLI
AGED 45 YEARS, OCC: PVT. WORK
RESIDENT OF BHANDARHALLI, NEAR MUNAVALLI
SAVADATTI TALUK
BELAGAVI DISTRICT.
2. SHAKUNTALA
W/O. SHRIPAD GANDOLKAR
AGED 61 YEARS, OCC: PVT. WORK
RESIDENT OF AGASARONI, GHANTIKERI, HUBLI
DHARWAD DISTRICT.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI K.S. PATIL, ADV.)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH POLICE INSPECTOR
GOKUL ROAD POLICE STATION, HUBLI
REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
A.G. OFFICE, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BENCH AT DHARWAD.
...RESPONDENT
(BY MS. SEEMA SHIVA NAIK, H.C.G.P.)
***
2
IN CRL.P. NO.100392/2021:
BETWEEN:
1. BASAVARAJ
S/O. DYAVAPPA ATADKAR
AGED 46 YEARS, OCC: PVT. WORK
RESIDENT OF SANTI SHIGLI
SHARAHATTI TALUK
GADAG DISTRICT.
2. RAMACHANDRA @ RAMACHANDRAPPA
S/O. NARASINGRAO GHORPADE
AGED 61 YEARS, OCC: PVT. WORK
RESIDENT OF BHANDARHALLI, NEAR MUNAVALLI
SAVADATTI TALUK
BELAGAVI DISTRICT.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI K.S. PATIL, ADV.)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH POLICE INSPECTOR
GOKUL ROAD POLICE STATION, HUBLI
REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
A.G. OFFICE, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BENCH AT DHARWAD.
...RESPONDENT
(BY MS. SEEMA SHIVA NAIK, H.C.G.P.)
***
IN CRL.P. NO.100393/2021:
BETWEEN:
1. TUKARAM
S/O. PANDURANG PATIL
AGED 52 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS
RESIDENT OF 10/B, JALARAM CHOUK
SUBHASH NAGAR, MIRAJ
MIRAJ TALUK
SANGALI DISTRICT
MAHARASTRA STATE.
3
2. RAJESH @ LAXMAN
S/O. NINGAPPA UMRANI
AGED 47 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE
RESIDENT OF YADURWADI, CHANDUR POST
CHIKKODI TALUK
BELGAVI DISTRICT.
3. RUKNODDIN
S/O. NOORMAHAMMAD DANGE
AGED 35 YEARS, OCC: MECHANIC
RESIDENT OF STATION ROAD, RAIBAG
RAIBAG TALUK
BELGAVI.
4. SATAPPA
S/O. SADASHIV CHOUGALA
AGED 47 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE
RESIDENT OF 169/A, BEKKERI GONDE THOT
NAGARAL, RAIBAG TALUK
BELAGAVI DISTRICT.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI K.S. PATIL, ADV.)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH POLICE INSPECTOR
GOKUL ROAD POLICE STATION, HUBLI
REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
A.G. OFFICE, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BENCH AT DHARWAD.
...RESPONDENT
(BY MS. SEEMA SHIVA NAIK, H.C.G.P.)
***
THESE CRIMINAL PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER SECTION 438 OF
THE CR.P.C. PRAYING TO RELEASE THE PETITIONERS ON BAIL IN THE
EVENT OF THEIR ARREST IN CRIME NO.2 OF 2021 OF GOKUL ROAD
POLICE STATION FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 420
OF THE IPC.
THESE CRIMINAL PETITIONS ARE COMING ON FOR ORDERS
THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING/VIDEO CONFERENCING HEARING, THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
4
ORDER
Criminal Petition No.100391 of 2021 is filed by accused Nos.9 and 10, Criminal Petition No.100392 of 2021 is filed by accused Nos.1 and 8 and Criminal Petition No.100393 of 2021 is filed by accused Nos.2, 4, 5, 7 under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (for short, 'the Cr.P.C.') praying for grant of anticipatory bail in the event of their arrest in connection with Crime No.2 of 2021 registered by Gokul Road Police Station for the offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, 'the IPC').
2. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners as well the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State and perused the record.
3. The case of the prosecution is that, on the complaint of one Smt. Annapurna Shantakumar Jekinakatti, the Police registered a case against accused Nos.1 to 11 for the offence under Section 420 of the IPC. It is alleged by the complainant that, accused Nos.2 to 11 have assured her that they will pay 5 double the amount invested with GLI Breezmart Green Vihar Developers Limited within six months. Petitioners are said to be the Supervisors of the said Company. After amount has been deposited by the complainant and other investors, the Company is said to have cheated her and other people. After registering the case, the Police are making hectic efforts to arrest the accused persons. Hence, these petitioners approached the Sessions Court for grant of bail, which came to be rejected. Hence, these petitions.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that the petitioners are innocent of the alleged offence and they have been falsely implicated in the case. In fact, the main accused is the Managing Director and accused No.1 of the said Company. Accused Nos.2 to 11 are the employees of the Company. In fact, these petitioners have lodged a complaint against the Chairman and Managing Director of the said Company before the Commissioner of Police, Hubli-Dharwad, for cheating them. The Police have given endorsement that a case 6 is already registered against the Managing Director of the Company at Guna Police Station in Madhya Pradesh for so many offences. Therefore, they have not taken any action against the Managing Director of the said Company. These petitioners are also the victims, who have been cheated by the said Company. These petitioners are acted as agents working under the said Company. There is no allegation against the petitioners, except their names are shown in the F.I.R. There is nothing recovered from the petitioners. They are ready to abide by any conditions to be imposed by this Court. Accused No.6 has already been granted bail by this Court on 19-2-2021 in Criminal Petition No.100337 of 2021 and hence, on the ground of parity, the petitioners may also be enlarged on bail.
5. Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader has opposed the bail petitions and contended that accused Nos.2 to 11 are connected with accused No.1. The said Company has cheated more number of investors, who have deposited huge amount. At the instance of the accused persons, 7 the Company assured to pay 12.5% interest on Fixed Deposits, but cheated the investors. Investigation is still pending and they are required for custodial interrogation. Hence, she prayed for rejecting the bail petition.
6. Upon hearing the arguments and perusal of the record, it goes to show that the petitioners are said to be agents or employees of GLI Breezmart Green Vihar Developers Limited. Many investors, including general public invested huge amount as Fixed Deposits in the said Company and later, they have not paid any amount on expiry of the Fixed Deposits and the Company is said to have been closed and not paid any money invested by the general public. The allegations against these petitioners are that they are working in the Company as agents and they themselves are the victims. Therefore, a complaint came to be filed by them. One of the accused is also stated that he has also invested money in the Company and introduced some of the customers and worked as Field Officer. Further, it is brought to the notice of this Court by the learned counsel for 8 the petitioners that the petitioners have filed a joint complaint to the Commissioner of Police, Hubli-Dharwad, on 26-7-2018 and also a complaint before the District Collector, Gadag, against GLI Breezmart Green Vihar Developers Limited. Endorsement is also issued by the Police Commissioner, Hubli-Dharwad, on the complaint filed by the petitioners stating that the Madhya Pradesh Police at Guna Kotwali Police Station has registered a case in Crime No.266 of 2018 for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 417, 418, 406, 409, 208, 467 and 468 of the IPC and Section 4, 6(1) and 6(2) of the Consumer Protection Act, which is pending before the Madhya Pradesh Court. Therefore, no action can be taken against them and these petitioners themselves filed a complaint before the Police stating that the said Company has cheated them. Of course, the petitioners have also invested some money and the Company is responsible to refund the amount to the customers or investors. The petitioners are working as agents in the said Company. Investigation is still pending. The offences are not punishable with death or imprisonment for life. In the background of 9 registration of the case by Madhya Pradesh Police against the Managing Director of the Company and these petitioners are said to be only workers in the said Company, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, by imposing stringent conditions, if anticipatory bail is granted to the petitioners, no prejudice would be caused to the case of the prosecution. Hence, I pass the following:
ORDER Criminal petitions are allowed. The respondent-Police is directed to release the petitioners on bail in the event of their arrest in Crime No.2 of 2021 for the offence punishable under Section 420 of the IPC, subject to the following conditions:
i. The petitioners shall execute a personal bond for a sum of `1,00,000/- each (Rupees one lakh only) with one surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer or the trial Court;10
ii. The petitioners shall surrender themselves before the Investigating Officer within fifteen days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order;
iii. The petitioners shall not tamper with the prosecution witnesses directly or indirectly; iv. The petitioners shall not indulge in similar offences;
v. The petitioners shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Court without permission of the trial Court;
vi. The petitioners shall mark their attendance before the Investigating Officer on every Monday between 10:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. for a period of two months or till filing of the charge-sheet, whichever is earlier; and 11 vii. The petitioners shall be deemed to be in custody for the purpose of any recovery under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
Sd/-
JUDGE kvk