Karnataka High Court
H Mahantesh vs State By Extension Police Station on 14 December, 2018
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2018
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK G. NIJAGANNAVAR
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.7595/2018
BETWEEN:
1. H MAHANTESH
S/O B M UMAPATHI,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
PROP:GLOBAL VISION CABLE NETWORK
JAYANAGARA, DAVANAGERE-577072
2. H HALESH
S/O HANUMANTHAPPA
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
PROP:MARKANDESHWARA CABLE NETWORK
HOSAKUNDAVADA-577036.
DAVANAGERE TALUK.
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI B.M. HALASWAMY, ADV.)
AND
STATE BY EXTENSION POLICE STATION
DAVANAGERE.
SPP HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
AT BANGALORE.
... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI YOGANNA, HCGP)
THIS CRL.P FILED U/S.438 CR.P.C PRAYING TO ENLARGE
THE PETITIONERS ON BAIL IN THE EVENT OF THEIR ARREST IN
CR.NO.386/2017 OF DAVANAGERE EXTENTION P.S.,
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 420 R/W 34
OF IPC.
2
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This petition is filed under S.438 of Cr.P.C. by the petitioners seeking bail in the event of their arrest in Crime No.386/2017 registered at Davanagere Police Station for the offences punishable under Section 420 read with Section 34 of IPC.
2. Heard counsel for the petitioners and learned State Public Prosecutor. Perused the records.
3. The FIR is registered on the basis of the complaint filed by one Sri Baburao Pawar, Manager of Bhima Riddhi Digital Services. The allegations are that the petitioners namely accused Nos. 1 and 2 were working as cable operators. As per the agreement, they were under the obligation to pay certain amounts. The accused No.1 - Mahantesh was required to pay a sum of Rs.10,80,000/- out of which he has paid only Rs.58,040/- and has not paid 3 the balance amount. The accused No.2 Haleshappa was required to pay an amount of Rs.1,78,111/-. He has paid only Rs.45,000/- and he has not paid the balance amount of Rs.1,33,110/-. The petitioners have violated the terms and conditions of the company and they have committed the wrongful act of cheating.
4. The counsel for the petitioners submitted that the alleged transaction is nothing but breach of contract. The dispute is of civil nature. The petitioners had no mala fide intention of committing the wrongful act of cheating. The police officials are making attempts to arrest the petitioners. In the event of arrest, they will be put to hardship.
5. Learned State Public Prosecutor submitted that the petitioners being the cable operators working under the complainant company have committed default in making the payment as per the agreement and have also committed the wrongful act of cheating. As such they are not entitled for anticipatory bail.
4
6. The complaint averments disclose that the petitioners have committed default in payment of the amount payable as per the terms of the agreement and terms and conditions of the company. According to the counsel for the petitioners, the accounts are to be settled. At this stage it is needless to make elaborate discussions about these records. No grounds are made out for custodial interrogation of the petitioners.
7. Considering the nature of allegations made in the complaint and the grounds urged by the counsel, this petition deserves to be allowed subject to certain terms and conditions. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The criminal petition is allowed.
The petitioners are directed to surrender before the I.O. within ten days from the date of supply of a certified copy of this bail order. On their appearance, the I.O. shall 5 conduct the interrogation. Thereafter, the petitioners shall be enlarged on bail subject to the following conditions:
(i) The petitioners shall furnish a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- each, with two sureties for the like sum to the satisfaction of the I.O. / concerned Court;
(ii) The petitioners shall appear before the
Investigating Officer as and when
required;
(iii) The petitioners shall mark their
attendance on every Monday before the concerned Police Station, till filing of the charge-sheet.
(iv) The petitioners shall not threaten or allure the prosecution witnesses.
sd/-
JUDGE sac*