Chandra Shekar vs State Of Karnataka on 13 January, 2022

[Cites 9, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Chandra Shekar vs State Of Karnataka on 13 January, 2022

Bench: H.P. Sandesh

                            1



       IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

         DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2022

                          BEFORE

           THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH

             CRIMINAL PETITION NO.10166/2021

BETWEEN:

CHANDRA SHEKAR,
S/O MAHADEVAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
R/AT NO 1125/2, 3RD MAIN E BLOCK,
2ND STAGE, RAJAJINAGAR,
BENGALURU 560010.                             ...PETITIONER

              (BY SRI RAKSHITH R, ADVOCATE)

AND:

STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY RAJAJINAGAR POLICE,
REP BY SPP,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
AT BANGALORE, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BENGALURU 01.                              ...RESPONDENT

             (BY SRI K.K. KRISHNA KUMAR, HCGP)

     THIS CRIMINAL PETITION 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.84/2021 REGISTERED BY
RAJAJINAGAR POLICE STATION, BENGALURU FOR THE OFFENCE
PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 406, 465, 468, 471, 420,
120(B) READ WITH 34 OF IPC, PENDING ON THE FILE OF LXVII
ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGLAURU.
                                   2



     THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS
THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE
THE FOLLOWING:

                                ORDER

This petition is filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. praying this Court to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest in respect of Crime No.84/2021 registered by the Rajajinagar Police Station, Malleshwaram Sub-Division, for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 465, 468, 471, 420, 120B read with Section 34 of IPC.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State.

3. The factual matrix of the case is that in connection with furnishing of bank guarantee, the complainant has approached accused Nos.1 and 2 and in turn they referred this petitioner and this petitioner in turn referred to accused No.5 and accused No.5 provided fake bank guarantee for an amount of Rs.68,01,000/- and collected commission of Rs.68,000/- from the complainant. The allegation is made that all the accused 3 joined together in committing the offence of criminal breach of trust and creation of fake documents. This petitioner has been arraigned as accused No.3.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that a false case has been registered against this petitioner and this petitioner was not indulged in such activities and when the complainant approached him, he only suggested the name of the accused No.5 and hence, it is a fit case to exercise the powers under Section 438 of Cr.P.C.

5. Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the State would submit that at the instance of this petitioner only, the complainant approached accused No.5 and all of them joined together to commit the alleged offences. The counsel further submits that accused Nos.1 and 2 have referred the complainant to accused No.3 who in turn referred to accused No.5 and fake bank guarantee obtained from accused No.5. Hence, prayed to dismiss the petition.

6. Having heard the respective counsel and also on perusal of the documents on record it is clear that this petitioner had not issued the fake bank guarantee but he referred the complainant to accused No.5 when accused Nos.1 and 2 referred to this petitioner and accused No.5 collected the commission from the complainant an amount of Rs.68,000/- for creation of the fake bank guarantee. When such being the factual aspects of the case and there is no criminal antecedents against this petitioner and this petitioner has not received any amount from the complainant but he only referred to accused No.5, it is a fit case to exercise the powers under Section 438 of Cr.P.C directing the petitioner to assist the investigating officer to complete the investigation.

7. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following:

ORDER The petition is allowed. Consequently, the petitioner shall be released on bail in the event of his arrest in connection with Crime No.84/2021 registered by the Rajajinagar Police Station, 5 Malleshwaram Sub-Division, for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 465, 468, 471, 420, 120B read with Section 34 of IPC, subject to the following conditions:-

(i) The petitioner shall surrender himself before the Investigating Officer within ten days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order and shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only) with two sureties for the like-sum to the satisfaction of the concerned Investigating Officer.

(ii) The petitioner shall not indulge in hampering the investigation or tampering the prosecution witnesses.

(iii) The petitioner shall co-operate with the Investigating Officer to complete the investigation and he shall appear before the Investigating Officer, as and when called for.

(iv) The petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Investigating Officer without prior permission till the charge sheet is filed or for a period of three months, whichever is earlier.

(v) The petitioner shall mark his attendance once in a month i.e., on 30th of every month between 10.00 a.m. and 5.00 p.m., before the Investigating Officer for a period of three months or till the charge-sheet is filed, whichever is earlier.

Sd/-

JUDGE SN

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court