Karnataka High Court
Raju S/O Ganpatrao Gaikwad vs The State Of Karnataka Through S.H.O ... on 18 January, 2016
Author: Aravind Kumar
Bench: Aravind Kumar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF JANUARY 2016
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR
CRIMINAL PETITION No.201189/2015
C/W
CRIMINAL PETITION NOS.201183/2015,
201184/2015, 201185/2015, 201186/2015,
201187/2015 & 201188/2015
CRL.P.201189/2015
BETWEEN:
RAJU S/O GANPATRAO GAIKWAD
AGE: 45 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE & BUSINESS
R/O KARADNAKA, PANDHAROUR TALUK
DIST. SOLAPUR, MAHARASHTRA
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI SACHIN M. MAHAJAN, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH S.H.O., SHANTHAPUR POLICE
STATION, TQ. AURAD-B, DIST. BIDAR
REPRESENTED BY ADDITIONAL S.P.P.
HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BENCH AT KALABURAGI- 585 103
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI P. S. PATIL, HCGP)
2
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439
OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO ALLOW THE PETITION AND ORDER
FOR RELEASE OF THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CRIME
NO.100/2015 (SHANTHAPUR P.S.) ON THE FILE HON'BLE CIVIL
JUDGE & JMFC AT AURAD-B, WHICH IS REGISTERED FOR THE
OFFENCES P/U/S. 420, 468, 471 OF IPC.
CRL.P.201183/2015
BETWEEN:
RAJU S/O GANPATRAO GAIKWAD
AGE: 45 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE & BUSINESS
R/O KARADNAKA, PANDHAROUR TALUK
DIST. SOLAPUR, MAHARASHTRA
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI SACHIN M. MAHAJAN, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH S.H.O., AURAD-B, POLICE STATION
TQ. AURAD-B, DIST. BIDAR
REPRESENTED BY ADDITIONAL S.P.P.
HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BENCH AT KALABURAGI- 585 103
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI P. S. PATIL, HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439
OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO ALLOW THE PETITION AND ORDER
FOR RELEASE OF THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CRIME
NO.186/2015 (AURAD-B P.S.) ON THE FILE HON'BLE CIVIL
JUDGE & JMFC AT AURAD-B, WHICH IS REGISTERED FOR THE
OFFENCES P/U/S. 420 OF IPC.
CRL.P.201184/2015
BETWEEN:
RAJU S/O GANPATRAO GAIKWAD
AGE: 45 YEARS,
3
OCC: AGRICULTURE & BUSINESS
R/O KARADNAKA, PANDHAROUR TALUK
DIST. SOLAPUR, MAHARASHTRA
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI SACHIN M. MAHAJAN, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH S.H.O., KAMAL NAGAR POLICE
STATION, TQ. AURAD-B, DIST. BIDAR
REPRESENTED BY ADDITIONAL S.P.P.
HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BENCH AT KALABURAGI- 585 103
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI P. S. PATIL, HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439
OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO ALLOW THE PETITION AND ORDER
FOR RELEASE OF THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CRIME
NO.186/2015 (KAMAL NAGAR P.S.) ON THE FILE HON'BLE CIVIL
JUDGE & JMFC AT AURAD-B, WHICH IS REGISTERED FOR THE
OFFENCES P/U/S. 420.
CRL.P.201185/2015
BETWEEN:
RAJU S/O GANPATRAO GAIKWAD
AGE: 45 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE & BUSINESS
R/O KARADNAKA, PANDHAROUR TALUK
DIST. SOLAPUR, MAHARASHTRA
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI SACHIN M. MAHAJAN, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH S.H.O., SHANTHAPUR POLICE
STATION, TQ. AURAD-B, DIST. BIDAR
REPRESENTED BY ADDITIONAL S.P.P.
4
HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BENCH AT KALABURAGI- 585 103
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI P. S. PATIL, HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439
OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO ALLOW THE PETITION AND ORDER
FOR RELEASE OF THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CRIME
NO.97/2015 (SHANTHAPUR P.S.) ON THE FILE HON'BLE CIVIL
JUDGE & JMFC AT AURAD-B, WHICH IS REGISTERED FOR THE
OFFENCES P/U/S. 420, 468, 470, 471 OF IPC.
CRL.P.201186/2015
BETWEEN:
RAJU S/O GANPATRAO GAIKWAD
AGE: 45 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE & BUSINESS
R/O KARADNAKA, PANDHAROUR TALUK
DIST. SOLAPUR, MAHARASHTRA
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI SACHIN M. MAHAJAN, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH S.H.O., SHANTHAPUR POLICE
STATION, TQ. AURAD-B, DIST. BIDAR
REPRESENTED BY ADDITIONAL S.P.P.
HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BENCH AT KALABURAGI- 585 103
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI P. S. PATIL, HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439
OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO ALLOW THE PETITION AND ORDER
FOR RELEASE OF THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CRIME
NO.100/2015 (SHANTHAPUR P.S.) ON THE FILE HON'BLE CIVIL
JUDGE & JMFC AT AURAD-B, WHICH IS REGISTERED FOR THE
OFFENCES P/U/S. 420, 468, 470, 471 OF IPC.
5
CRL.P.201187/2015
BETWEEN:
RAJU S/O GANPATRAO GAIKWAD
AGE: 45 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE & BUSINESS
R/O KARADNAKA, PANDHAROUR TALUK
DIST. SOLAPUR, MAHARASHTRA
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI SACHIN M. MAHAJAN, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH S.H.O., SHANTHAPUR POLICE
STATION, TQ. AURAD-B, DIST. BIDAR
REPRESENTED BY ADDITIONAL S.P.P.
HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BENCH AT KALABURAGI- 585 103
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI P. S. PATIL, HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439
OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO ALLOW THE PETITION AND ORDER
FOR RELEASE OF THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CRIME
NO.98/2015 (SHANTHAPUR P.S.) ON THE FILE HON'BLE CIVIL
JUDGE & JMFC AT AURAD-B, WHICH IS REGISTERED FOR THE
OFFENCES P/U/S. 420 OF IPC.
CRL.P.201188/2015
BETWEEN:
RAJU S/O GANPATRAO GAIKWAD
AGE: 45 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE & BUSINESS
R/O KARADNAKA, PANDHAROUR TALUK
DIST. SOLAPUR, MAHARASHTRA
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI SACHIN M. MAHAJAN, ADVOCATE)
6
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH S.H.O., SHANTHAPUR POLICE
STATION, TQ. AURAD-B, DIST. BIDAR
REPRESENTED BY ADDITIONAL S.P.P.
HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BENCH AT KALABURAGI- 585 103
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI P. S. PATIL, HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439
OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO ALLOW THE PETITION AND ORDER
FOR RELEASE OF THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CRIME
NO.99/2015 (SHANTHAPUR P.S.) ON THE FILE HON'BLE CIVIL
JUDGE & JMFC AT AURAD-B, WHICH IS REGISTERED FOR THE
OFFENCES P/U/S. 420 OF IPC.
THESE CRIMINAL PETITIONS COMING ON FOR ORDERS
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
In all these petitions, the grievances of complainants are common and so also the defence of petitioner/accused. Hence, these petitions are heard and disposed of by this common order.
2. The gist of the complaint filed by complainants in all these cases is petitioner had floated a Company known and called as M/s.Jagruti Agro Foods & Infra Projects LLP and had informed the 7 complainants that an amount of rupees ten lakhs invested for purposes of sheep/goat rearing in their respective lands would be yielding rupees one crore in seventy months and on such promise being made, complainants claim to have paid accused/petitioner amounts ranging from `10,00,000/- to `11,60,000/-. They have further alleged in the complaint that as promised, no shed or unit for sheep/goat rearing was not put up by petitioner and neither amounts paid by complainants came to be repaid and on enquiry being made, they came to know that petitioner had cheated several such persons on same assurance and promise. Hence, they lodged complaints against petitioner for suitable action being taken against him for cheating the complainants. Based on said complaint, jurisdictional police have registered FIR's by, arraigning petitioner as accused for the offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC.
8
3. It is the contention of Sri.Sachin M. Mahajan, learned Advocate appearing for petitioner in all these petitions submit that petitioner is innocent of the offence alleged against him and undisputedly respective complainants had also been inducted as partners of the firm and as such they are not entitled to lodged complaint against another partner and their grievance if any is to be redressed before a Civil Court of competent jurisdiction since dispute is purely in civil nature. He would further contend that the material furnished by petitioner during the course of investigation before I.O. would clearly indicate that petitioner has not only invested sufficient money for putting up structures and sheds in the agricultural lands of complainants for sheet/goat rearing but has also paid premium to Insurance Company for insuring them. It is also contended that petitioner herein has also filed a complaint against Sri.Satyawan Patil and Sri.Srirang Patil alleging that they had sold goats/sheep 9 bought by petitioner and located in the lands of few of complainants and same has been registered as Crime No.114/2015 and this Court has enlarged accused persons therein by granting anticipatory bail in Criminal Petition No.8745/2015 dated 22.12.2015, opining that it is dispute between petitioners therein and complainant i.e., petitioner herein and similar analogy is to be drawn and petitioner herein be enlarged on bail.
4. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader would oppose grant of bail and contends that in the event of petitioner being enlarged on bail, there is likelihood of petitioner absconding from justice and he being not a permanent resident of Karnataka State, he would not appear before jurisdictional Court. Hence, he prays for rejection of the petition.
5. Having heard the learned Advocates appearing for parties and on perusal of records, it would 10 indicate that complainants in these respecitve cases have invested certain amounts in the Company known and called as M/s Jagruti Agro Foods & Infra Projects LLP. The photographs made available by learned Advocate appearing for petitioner would also disclose that certain sheds have come up in the agricultural lands. That apart, sheep said to have been purchased by the petitioner had been insured as could be seen from premium receipt issued by New India Assurance Company Limited and in the column of 'Location of Stable' it has been indicated as Kandagul Plant, Aurad- B taluk, Bidar district. Thus, it cannot be said at this stage that petitioner has not made out prima facie case. As to whether there has been a contract between parties and whether it has been breached or not with an intention to cheat the complaints is a matter which has to be thrashed out at the time of trial. Any opinion expressed at this stage is likely to prejudice the right of parties. Existence of a prima facie case is only to be 11 considered at this stage. Elaborate analysis of material or exhaustive exploration of the merits is not required to be undertaken. As such discussion about merits of case has to be avoided and only prima facie consideration will have to be taken into consideration. In fact, only apprehension expressed by prosecution is accused being a permanent resident of Maharashtra State he is likely to abscond from justice. However, considering the prima facie material placed on record, this Court is of the view that if stringent conditions are imposed on petitioner it would allay the fears of prosecution.
6. In that view of the mater, this Court is of considered view that petitioner is to be enlarged on bail with strict conditions.
Hence, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
a) Criminal Petitions are hereby allowed. 12
b) Petitioner is ordered to be enlarged on bail in Crime No.100/2015 (Crl.P.No.201189/2015), Crime No.97/2015 (Crl.P.No.201185/2015), Crime No.101/2015 (Crl.P.No.201186/2015), Crime No.98/2015 (Crl.P.No.201187/2015), Crime No.99/2015 (Crl.P.No.201188/2015) registered by Shanthapur Police Station, Crime No.186/2015 (Crl.P.201183/2015), by Aurad Police Station, Crime No.186/2015 (Crl.P.No.201184/015) by Kamalanagar Police Station, on petitioner executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Only) in each case with two sureties for the likesum together with cash surety of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) in each case and to the satisfaction of jurisdictional Court and subject to following conditions:13
i) Petitioner without seeking exemption shall appear before the jurisdictional Court on all dates of hearing except under exceptional circumstances;
ii) Petitioner shall appear before the respective jurisdictional Police Station once in 15 days and mark his attendance on 15th and 30th of every month between 8.00 a.m. to 5.00 p.m. till conclusion of trial.
iii) Petitioner shall not tamper or terrorize
prosecution witnesses in any manner
whatsoever;
iv) If petitioner violates any of the conditions,
prosecution would be at liberty to seek for cancellation of bail;
Sd/-
JUDGE Srt