Karnataka High Court
Sourish Bose vs State Of Karnataka By on 18 August, 2017
Author: Rathnakala
Bench: Rathnakala
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2017
BEFORE
THE HON' BLE MRS JUSTICE RATHNAKALA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.4678 OF 2017
BETWEEN:
SOURISH BOSE
S/O INDRANIL BOSE
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS
OCCUPATION: SOFTWARE ENGINEER
IN MICROSOFT, KOLKATA
RESIDING AT NO.43
DH ROAD
KOLKATA - 700 034
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI.HASHMATH PASHA, ADV.,)
AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY HENNUR POLICE STATION
BANGALORE CITY - 34
(REPRESENTED BY
LEARNED STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR)
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BANGALORE - 01
... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI.CHETAN DESAI, HCGP.,)
2
THIS CRL.P. 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.153/2017 OF HENNUR P.S.,
BANGALORE FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 420 OF IPC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioner apprehends arrest by the respondent - police in Crime No.153/2017 registered in respect of the offence under Section 420 of IPC. He is not named in the First Information Report. Subsequently, Investigating Officer has arraigned him as accused No.2.
2. The allegation is, this petitioner created E-mail ID under the name and style Rajshree96 and placed orders for articles like, Music gadgets, Televisions and Cameras through Ebeye Base Celler Customer and has received the articles at different address. Within 24 hours of receipt of the articles, he used to return the products to the Company with objection about the articles. At the time of returning, he would give the 3 address of the first accused - his aunt. Immediately after such return, the price of the articles would be credited to the account of the first accused. Thus, he cheated the company in respect of 104 articles amounting to Rs.69,91,940/-.
3. Sri.Hashmath Pasha, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the first accused in whose address the articles have been received was arrested and subsequently was enlarged on bail. No order could be placed without a unique number and the complaint is silent about the unique number of the E-mail ID. The complaint allegation is vague and lacks material particulars with regard to unique number of the E-mail ID. This petitioner is no way connected to the alleged offence. Hence, the petitioner may be granted anticipatory bail.
4. Learned High Court Government Pleader while opposing the petition submits that infact this petitioner is responsible for the alleged offence. Though the orders were 4 placed with different address, while returning the articles a common address at Bengaluru pertaining to the first accused was shown. Thus, the petitioner is required for custodial interrogation and the anticipatory bail if granted will hamper the investigation.
5. In the light of the above submission and on perusing the case diary, it is felt, that without interrogation of this petitioner investigation cannot gain momentum.
6. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The petitioner is granted anticipatory bail in Crime No. 153/2017 registered by the respondent - police, subject to the following conditions:
(i) He shall forthwith appear before the respondent - Investigating Officer.
(ii) In that event the Investigating Officer is at liberty to interrogate him and recover the incriminating material, if any, at his 5 instance under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act.
(iii) In the event of his arrest, he shall be released on bail on executing a self bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) with one surety for the likesum.
Sd/-
JUDGE GH