Karnataka High Court
Heerya Naik S/O Somla Naik vs The Statet Of Karnataka on 8 December, 2017
Author: K.Somashekar
Bench: K. Somashekar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2017
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. SOMASHEKAR
CRL. P. NO. 102636/2017
BETWEEN:
HEERYA NAIK S/O SOMLA NAIK,
AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC: FARMER,
R/O: CHIKKAJOGIHALLI TANDA,
KUDLIGI TQ, BALLARI DIST.
- PETITIONER
(BY SRI B. ANWAR BASHA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
(THROUGH SANDUR P.S.)
REPRESENTED BY ITS
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
BENCH AT DHARWAD.
- RESPONDENT
(BY SRI RAJA RAGHAVENDRA NAIK, GOVT. PLEADER)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 438
OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER (ACCUSED
NO.2) ON BAIL IN THE EVENT OF HIS ARREST IN CONNECTION
WITH SANDUR P.S. CRIME NO. 197/2016 FOR THE ALLEGED
OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/S 506, 418, 406, 420 OF IPC & ETC.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
2
ORDER
This petition is filed by the petitioner-accused No.2 u/S 438 of Cr.P.C. seeking to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest in connection with Sandur Police Station Crime No. 197/2016 for the alleged offences punishable u/S 506, 418, 406, 409, 420 of IPC. Therefore, the learned counsel is praying to allow the petition among other grounds urged therein.
2. Brief facts of the case of the prosecution are as under:
The complaint filed by one Nagarathna, before the respondent Police against the accused alleging that the accused-petitioner herein being the Police Constable in Sandur Police Station and his relative, have purchased land bearing Sy. No. 193/1B measuring one acre. Subsequent to purchase of the said property they did not pay the entire sale amount despite request made by the complainant, but issued a blank cheque and on presentation for encashment it returned with an endorsement "insufficient funds in the 3 account of the account holder". The allegation made in the complaint came to be registered by the respondent Police against the accused.
3. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner so also the learned Govt. Pleader for the State and perused the records.
4. As could be seen from the complaint it reveals that Crime No. 197/2016 came to be registered by the respondent Police based upon the complaint filed by the complainant as the accused did not pay the entire sale consideration for purchase of one acre of land from the complainant. Subsequently, the complainant asked to pay the amount. Therefore, the accused issued a blank cheque and when it was presented for encashment it returned with an endorsement "insufficient funds in the account of the account holder". The same is also borne out in the complaint filed before the respondent Police. But, the petitioner is 4 apprehending arrest by the Police and hence filed the present petition.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that there was no role made by this petitioner in the alleged crime and the allegation is made only against the first accused. The co-accused have already been granted bail in Crl. P. No. 101994/2017 by imposing conditions. Therefore, the principles of parity be extended to this accused as the accused is ready to abide by any terms and conditions imposed by this Court while granting bail. On all these grounds the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is seeking for bail.
6. Per contra learned Govt. Pleader appearing for the State vehemently contended that the case in Crime No. 197/2016 is registered against the petitioner herein and others alleging that the first accused said to have purchased land from the petitioner bearing Sy. No. 193/1B measuring one acre. Subsequent to purchase of the property they did not pay the 5 entire sale consideration. Therefore, the complainant insisted the accused to pay the amount and the first accused had issued the cheques which belonged to the second accused. But the cheques were returned with the endorsement "insufficient funds in the account of the accountholder". All these materials are borne out in the complaint as well as in the FIR said to be recorded by the Police against the accused. This accused is absconding from the date of complaint and hence does not deserve for bail. Hence, sought for rejecting the bail petition.
7. Keeping in view the contention taken by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and also the fact that the case is still under investigation which requires collection of documents, recording statement of witnesses and etc. However, at this stage, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the charge sheet is laid by the Investigating Officer and therefore it is stated that, at this stage, it does not require any detail discussion for considering 6 the bail petition filed by the accused. Therefore, for the aforesaid reasons as well as under the circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion, the petitioner can be enlarged on the bail. Hence, I pass the following order.
ORDER Bail petition filed by the petitioner u/S 438 of Cr.P.C. is hereby allowed.
1) Petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer where the case in Crime No. 197/2016 is pending and shall execute a personal bond in a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with a surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer, within 20 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order;
2) Petitioner shall co-operate with the Investigating Officer during the course of investigation, if necessary;
3) Petitioner shall not tamper or hamper the case of the prosecution;7
4) The petitioner shall appear before the Court of law on all the dates of hearing without fail;
5) The petitioner shall not indulge in any criminal activities henceforth;
6) The petitioner shall mark his attendance once in fortnight as per the English Monthly Calendar between 10 am and 5 pm for a period of three months.
If the petitioner violates any of the aforesaid conditions, the bail order shall automatically stands ceased.
SD/-
JUDGE bvv