Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 154 (KAR)

Khateem K. v. State by Hiriyur Town Police

2014-02-13

R.B.BUDIHAL

body2014
ORDER 1. This petition is filed by petitioners-accused Nos.1 & 2 under Section 438 of Cr. P.C. seeking anticipatory bail to direct the respondent-police to release the petitioners on bail in the event of their arrest for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 406, 465, 420, 472 and 120B of the IPC registered in respondent-police station Crime No.227/2013. 2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that a private complaint was filed before the Magistrate Court at Hiriyur alleging that these petitioners falsely assured the complainant that they would secure a job to him provided the complainant gave them Rs.5 lakhs. The said promise was made during second week of February 2013. Immediately, the complainant arranged Rs.5 lakhs and paid the amount to the petitioners with marks card and bank passbook. The complainant did not get any information about the appointment till September 2013 and when the complainant demanded the 2nd petitioner to return the amount, then it was assured that appointment letter will be issued within 15 days. On 1.10.2013 complainant received an appointment letter on behalf of Astrix Technologies Pvt. Ltd., He was asked to give some details in a format. Complainant went to Bangalore and enquired and he came to know that his name was shown as an employee of that company since 13.8.2011 itself and provident fund account was also opened under P.F.No.3778. In fact, the complainant was not given any appointment nor his amount has been returned and the petitioners have cheated the complainant. Hence, the matter was referred to the police for investigation and to submit the report. 3. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for petitioners-accused Nos.1 and 2 and also the learned Government Pleader for the respondent-State. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are innocent and they have not at all made any such promise to the complainant nor they have received Rs.5 lakhs. He has further submitted that petitioners are ready to abide by any reasonable conditions to be imposed by the Court and hence, petition may be allowed. 5. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are innocent and they have not at all made any such promise to the complainant nor they have received Rs.5 lakhs. He has further submitted that petitioners are ready to abide by any reasonable conditions to be imposed by the Court and hence, petition may be allowed. 5. As against this, learned Government Pleader during the course of his arguments submitted that petitioners have falsely assured the complainant that they will get permanent job for him if he pays Rs.5 lakhs and since the complainant was also jobless, under the hope that he will get the employment he arranged Rs.5 lakhs and gave the same to the petitioners along with his marks cards, bank passbook etc., When the complainant did not get the employment and later enquired with the present petitioners then ultimately, the complainant came to know that the present petitioners have cheated the complainant. He also submitted that the matter is still under investigation and the petitioners are absconding and because of that reason the Investigating Officer was not able to proceed with further investigation. Hence, petitioners are not entitled to be granted with bail. 6. I have perused the averments made in the bail petition and all other materials placed on record. 7. It is seen that it is not only the case of giving false assurance and collecting money, but the materials produced prima facie shows that the petitioners have even gone to the extent of creating false documents to the effect that his provident fund account is also opened in the P.F. office in the year 2011 itself showing that he is an employee. But when he personally went to the said office and made enquiries, he came to know that petitioners have created false documents to that effect. As rightly submitted by the learned Government Pleader looking to the allegations made in the complaint it is seen that it is necessary for the Investigating Officer to have interrogation with the present petitioners. It is also the contention of the prosecution that since from the date of incident, both the petitioners are absconding and not available to the Investigating Officer for interrogation. Hence, it is not a fit case to exercise the discretion in favour of the present petitioner. Accordingly, petition is rejected.