Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 393 (KAR)

K. v. Nagaraj VS State of Karnataka

2014-03-24

R.B.BUDIHAL

body2014
Judgment : 1. This petition is filed by the petitioner-accused under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. seeking a direction to the respondent police that in the event of his arrest, he be released on bail of the offences punishable under Sections 420, 468, 471, 504 and 506 of IPC registered in respondent Police Station Crime No.423/2013. 2. I have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner-accused and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State. 3. I have perused the averments made in the bail petition, FIR, complaint, the order passed by the lower Court on the bail application and the other materials on record. 4. Looking to the averments made in the complaint, it goes to show that the complaint was lodged on 30.11.2013 alleging that, on 19.02.2010, at the time of marriage of his brother-in-law at Lakshmivenkateshwara Kalyana Mantapa, the petitioner being the son of Vasudev Rao, introduced himself as an officer of LIC of India to the complainant and asked the complainant as to his wife Smt. K. Nagarathna is working anywhere. The complainant informed the petitioner that his wife is not working. It is further alleged that, the petitioner is none other than senior uncle of his wife Smt. Nagarathna and believing that he might provide a Job, he revealed the said fact. It is further alleged that, the petitioner made the complainant to believe that he would get an employment to his wife in Govt. Organization. The petitioner further said the complainant that there are several vacancies available in the Karnataka Industrial Development Board under the management quota and one of the Directors by name Krishnegowda and Suresh Nayak are very close to him and he will be able to secure the post of second Division Clerk to the wife of the complainant. He further said that some money has to be spent. Saying so, he collected Rs.3,50,000/-from the complainant. Neither the petitioner secured a job for wife of the complainant nor he repaid the amount received. Hence, the complainant lodged the complaint against the petitioner for the alleged offence. 5. Looking to the averments made in the complaint itself, the transaction is said to be of the year 2010 and the amount was also said to have been paid to the petitioner in a sum of Rs.3,50,000/-by way of four instatements. The complaint has been lodged in the year 2013. 6. 5. Looking to the averments made in the complaint itself, the transaction is said to be of the year 2010 and the amount was also said to have been paid to the petitioner in a sum of Rs.3,50,000/-by way of four instatements. The complaint has been lodged in the year 2013. 6. The learned HCGP during the course of the arguments submits that out of the amount of Rs.3,50,000/-received by the petitioner, he has given a cheque to the complainant on 17.3.2014 for an amount of Rs.1,50,000/-and hence, he submits that the petitioner has admitted the transaction between himself and the complainant. It is his further contention that looking to the materials, the prosecution has prima facie established the involvement of the petitioner in the commission of the alleged offence. 7. In the bail petition, the petitioner has completely denied that he has made assurance of getting job to the wife of the complainant and thereby induced them to pay Rs.3,50,000/-to him. It is his contention that he has been falsely implicated in the case and he is totally unconnected with the alleged transaction. The complaint has been filed on 30.11.2013. But it is the contention of the learned HCGP that subsequent to that, on 17.3.2014, the petitioner gave a cheque for Rs.1,50,000/- to the complainant which seems to be unnatural to be accepted at this stage. However, it is for the trial court to looked into this aspect during the course of the trial. The petitioner has undertaken that he is ready to abide by any condition that may be imposed by this Court. The offences alleged are triable by the Court of Magistrate and they are not exclusively punishable for death or imprisonment for life. Therefore, to secure the presence of the petitioner either before the investigating officer or before the concerned trial Court, stringent conditions can be imposed and he can be admitted to bail. 8. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The respondent police are directed to release the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 468, 471, 504 and 506 of IPC registered in Crime No.423/2013, subject to the following conditions: I. The petitioner shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/-(Rupees twenty five thousand only) and shall offer one surety for the likesum to the concerned Magistrate Court. II. II. The petitioner shall appear before the investigating officer for the purpose of interrogation, whenever called upon to do so. III. The petitioner shall not intimidate or tamper with prosecution witnesses, directly or indirectly. IV. The petitioner shall appear before the concerned Magistrate Court within thirty days from the date of this order and shall execute personal bond as well as surety bond.