Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 638 (KAR)

P. S. Santosh v. State of Karnataka

2014-07-03

R.B.BUDIHAL

body2014
Judgment : 1. This is the petition filed by the petitioner -accused No.4 under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. seeking his release on bail of the alleged offence punishable under Sections 420 r/w 34 of I.P.C. registered in respondent - Police Station Crime No. 100/2014. 2. Heard the arguments of the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner/accused No.4 and also the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent/State. 3. I have perused the averments made in the bail petition, FIR, complaint and the order passed by the Lower Court on the bail application and other materials placed on record. Looking to the averments in the complaint it is alleged that accused No.1 -Govindappa was working with the complainant in the same company and known to the complainant since 20 years. Accused No.1 has taken a sum of Rs.6,50,000/- from the complainant stating that he would get a jot to the son of the complainant and apart from the money S.S.L.C. Marks Card, P.U.C. Marks Card were also taken by Govindappa - accused No.1. There is further allegations that complainant had also introduced some of his friends who have also given money to Govindappa - accused No.1 and when the complainant and others enquired Govindappa about the job for his son he did not give any positive reply nor did get back the cash or the documents. Hence, the complaint was lodged. On the basis of the said complaint case was registered. 4. Looking to these averments in the complaint, it is specifically against the accused Nos.1 and 2 and the allegations are also clear in the complaint itself that the complainant gave the money into the hands of the accused No.1 and he has also gave the certificates of his son into the hands of accused No.1. Because of such specific allegations in the complaint, at the first instance FIR was registered only against the accused Nos.1 and 2. But the materials like remand application produced in this case goes to show that subsequently during the investigation stage on the basis of the statements of accused Nos.1 and 2, the present petitioner has also been arrested in the case. But the materials like remand application produced in this case goes to show that subsequently during the investigation stage on the basis of the statements of accused Nos.1 and 2, the present petitioner has also been arrested in the case. It is contended by the learned Counsel appearing for the present petitioner that there are no allegations in the complaint that he also involved in the commission of the alleged offence or the complainant gave the amount into the hands of the petitioner -accused No.4. Therefore, looking to these materials on record at this stage and as the present petitioner/accused No.4 has contended specifically in the bail petition that he has been falsely implicated in the case only basing on the voluntary statement of the accused Nos.1 and 2. He is innocent and he is ready to abide by any conditions to be imposed by the Court. The offence alleged under Section 420 of I.P.C. is triable by the Magistrate Court and not exclusively punishable with death or imprisonment for life. 5. Considering these aspects of the matter, 1 am of the opinion that the petitioner is entitled to be granted with bail. 6. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The petitioner/accused No.4 is ordered to be released on bail for the alleged offences subject to the following conditions : i) Petitioner to execute personal bond for Rs.25,000/-and he has to furnish one solvent surety for the like sum to the satisfaction of the concerned Court. ii) He shall not tamper with any of the prosecution witnesses, directly or indirectly. iii) He has to appear before the concerned Court regularly.