Karnataka High Court
Sanjeeva S/O Rajashekhara Biradar vs The State Of Karnataka on 18 November, 2021
Author: Shivashankar Amarannavar
Bench: Shivashankar Amarannavar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 18 T H DAY OF NOVEMBER 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR
CRIMINAL PETITION No. 102014/2021
BETWEEN:
SANJEEVA S/O RAJASHEKHARA BIRADAR
AGE. 29 YEARS, OCC. PRIVATE SERVICE,
R/O. LONI B. K. VILLAGE,
TALUKA INDI, DIST. VIJAYAPURA
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SRINIVA S B. NAIK, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH TOWN PS HOSAPETE,
R/BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH, DHARWAD.
... RES PONDENT
(BY SRI.RAMESH B. CHIGARI , HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 438 OF
CR.P.C., SEEKING TO GRANT ANTICIPATORY BAIL TO
THE PETITION ER/ ACCUSED NO.1 (I N THE EVENT OF
HIS ARREST) IN RESPECT OF HOS PET TOWN POLICE
STATION CRIME NO.108/ 2019 REGISTERED FOR THE
OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/S 121B, 406, 420, 468, 471,
R/W 34 OF I PC.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR
ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
2
ORDER
Accused No.1 has filed this petition under Section 438 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Cr.P.C.', for brevity) seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.108/2019 of Hospet Town Police Station registered for the offences punishable under Sections 121B, 406, 420, 468 and 471 read with Section 34 of The Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as the 'IPC', for brevity).
2. It is the case of the prosecution that, the complainant is the contractor, and accused No.2 and the complainant knows each other. On 12.06.2019, accused No.2 approached the complainant and informed him that one Tata Harrier vehicle is for sale and his friend intends to sell the same. The complainant agreed to 3 purchase the same and requested to share the details of the vehicle. Accused No.2 informed him that the vehicle was near Amaravati guest house and he would show the vehicle and introduce its owner. Since the complainant was interested in buying, went along with accused No.2 and accused No.2 introduced one person as Bishal Sunar. After seeing the vehicle and after negotiation, the price was fixed at Rs.17,00,000/-. Thereafter, the complainant after verifying all the necessary documents, agreed to purchase the vehicle. That on 17.06.2019, the complainant transferred about Rs.15,00,000/- to the account No.283701000002250 of Indian Overseas Bank Vidyaranyapura Branch from his Account maintained with the Vijaya Bank through RTGS and paid cash of Rs.4,00,000/- 4 to accused No.2 and at that time, Bishal Sunar was present. After the said transaction, the vehicle and necessary documents were handed over to the complainant. That on 18.07.2019, when the complainant had gone to RTO Office at Hospete to get no objection certificate, at that time, he came to know that there is an objection from HDFC bank, Bangalore Branch. At that time, the complainant tried to contact the said Bishal Sunar but he could not track him and when he approached accused No.2, accused No.2 assured him of getting the vehicle transferred in his name. On 19.02.2019 at about 6.00 pm when the complainant was in his house, the Police Inspector of Indira Nagar Police Station, Bengaluru, served notice to the complainant in respect of Crime No.162/2019 and seized the vehicle from the possession of 5 the complainant. The complainant after verifying all the documents with the concerned authority came to know that all the accused persons have colluded with each other and with an intention to cheat, have created false and fabricated documents and in furtherance of common intention of cheating, have sold the vehicle by suppressing the true facts. The allegation against the petitioner is that, he impersonated the said Bishal Sunar. The said complaint came to be registered in Crime No.108/2019 of Hospet Town Police Station, for the offences under Sections 121B, 406, 420, 468, 471 read with Section 34 of IPC. The petitioner/accused No.1 apprehending his arrest has filed Criminal Miscellaneous No.5104/2021 and the same came to be rejected by the learned III Additional District 6 and Sessions Judge, Bellary, sitting at Hosapete by order dated 16.04.2021. Therefore, the petitioner is before this Court seeking anticipatory bail.
3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State.
4. It would be the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that, the petitioner is innocent, has not committed any offence as alleged and he has been falsely implicated in the case. It is his further submission that even as on today, the said vehicle stands in the name of Bishal Sunar. It is his further submission that the case of the prosecution is based on the documents and as the investigation is already over, he is not 7 required for custodial interrogation. With these, he prayed for allowing the petition.
5. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader submitted that, the petitioner impersonated as Bishal Sunar and obtained car loan from HDFC Bank in the name of Bishal Sunar by creating false documents and cheated the complainant by selling the same for consideration of Rs.17,00,000/-. He further submitted that charge sheet has been filed and the same show prima facie case against the petitioner for the offences alleged against him. It is his further submission that if the petitioner is granted anticipatory bail, he will threaten the complainant and other prosecution witnesses. With this, he prayed to reject the petition.
8
6. Having regard to the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader, this Court has gone through the records.
7. The accusation levelled against the petitioner/accused No.1 is that, he in collusion with accused No.2 has cheated the complainant. The petitioner/accused No.1 impersonating himself as Bishal Sunar, availed car loan from HDFC Bank by creating documents which contains his photos and thereafter sold the said car to the complainant. The case of the prosecution is based on the documents. It is submitted by the learned Government Pleader that charge-sheet is already filed. As charge-sheet is filed, the 9 petitioner is not required for any custodial interrogation.
8. The main objection of the prosecution is that, if the petitioner is granted anticipatory bail, he will threaten the complainant and other prosecution witnesses and flee from justice. The said objection may be met with by imposing stringent conditions.
9. In the facts and circumstances of the case and the submission of the counsel, this Court is of the view that there are valid grounds for granting anticipatory bail subject to certain terms and conditions. Hence, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The petition filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. is allowed. The petitioner/accused No.1 10 shall be released on bail in the event of his arrest in connection with Crime No.108/2019 of Hospete Town Police Station, subject to the following conditions:
i. The petitioner shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-
(Rupees One Lakh Only) with one
surety for the likesum to the
satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court.
ii. The petitioner shall voluntarily surrender before the jurisdictional Court within 15 days from today and execute personal bond and furnish surety.
iii. The petitioner shall co-operate in the investigation and make himself available for interrogation whenever required.
iv. The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any witness acquainted 11 with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any Police Officer.
v. The petitioner shall not play mischief with the evidence collected.
Sd/-
JUDGE km v