Karnataka High Court
Sri C Srinivas vs The State Of Karnataka on 17 June, 2022
Author: H.P. Sandesh
Bench: H.P. Sandesh
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF JUNE, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.2697/2022
BETWEEN:
SRI C. SRINIVAS
S/O. LATE R. CHOKKALINGAM
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.44/2, NO.27
LINGAM LANE, NEAR JP NAGAR
SINDORE CONVENTION HALL
SARAKKI, J.P. NAGAR 1ST PHASE
BENGALURU-560078. ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI SOMASHEKHARAIAH R.P., ADVOCATE )
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY J.P. NAGAR POLICE STATION
BENGALURU-560078
REP. BY SPP, HIGH COURT BUILDING
BENGALURU-560 001. ... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI MAHESH SHETTY, 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.33/2020 OF
JAYAPRAKASH NAGAR P.S., BENGALURU CITY FOR THE
OFFENCES P/U/S. 406, 417, 418, 419, 420, 120-B AND 506 R/W
SECTION 34 OF IPC IN C.C.NO.9775/2021.
2
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This petition is filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. praying to enlarge the petitioner/accused No.1 on bail, in the event of his arrest in respect of Crime No.33/2020 registered by Jayaprakash Nagar Police Station, Bengaluru City, for the offence punishable under Sections 406, 417, 418, 419, 420, 120-B and 506 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 of the prosecution is that the erstwhile tenant has filed the private complaint and the matter was referred under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. Thereafter, the police have investigated the matter and filed the charge- sheet against this petitioner, who is the erstwhile owner of the property which has been sold. Inspite of the fact that the 3 property had already been sold, he had entered into a rental agreement and committed fraud and breach of trust.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that a false allegation has been made against the petitioner herein and he has not indulged in any such act. Hence, discretion may be exercised in favour of the petitioner to grant the relief of anticipatory bail.
5. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State would submit that, after referring the matter, the police have investigated the matter and filed the charge-sheet and found sufficient material against the petitioner. Hence, he is not entitled for bail.
6. Having heard the respective counsel and also taking note of the facts of the case, it is clear that erstwhile tenant has filed the complaint invoking Sections 406, 417, 418, 419, 420, 120-B and 506 read with Section 34 of IPC and matter has been investigated and charge-sheet has been filed. The complaint is also not filed by the subsequent purchaser and it is filed by the 4 erstwhile tenant. When such being the allegation made in the complaint, it is a matter of trial and for the investigation, the presence of the petitioner is not required, since already investigation is completed and charge-sheet is filed. Hence, it is a fit case to exercise the powers under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. in favour of the petitioner, subject to imposing certain conditions to protect and safeguard the interest of the prosecution. Hence, I pass the following:-
ORDER The petition is allowed. Consequently, the petitioner- accused No.1 shall be released on bail, in the event of his arrest in connection with Crime No.33/2020 registered by Jayaprakash Nagar Police Station, Bengaluru City, for the offence punishable under Sections 406, 417, 418, 419, 420, 120-B and 506 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 5 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 am and 5.00 pm., before the Investigating Officer for a period of three months or till the charge sheet is filed, whichever is earlier.
Sd/-
JUDGE ST