Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 879 (KAR)

R. Shivaraju v. State of Karnataka

2014-10-10

R.B.BUDIHAL

body2014
Judgment : 1. Since these two petitions are in respect of same crime number, they have been taken up together to avoid repetition of discussion and to dispose of them with a common order. 2. Crl.P.No.5676/2014 is filed by the petitioner/accused No.2 and Crl.P.No.5423/2014 is filed by the petitioner/accused No.3, under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking their release on bail for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 417, 418, 419, 420, 120B read with Section 34 of IPC registered in respondent - police station Crime No.132/2014. 3. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/accused No.3, the learned counsel appearing for petitioner/accused No.2 and also the learned Spl.Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner/accused No.3 during the course of his arguments submitted that as there are changed circumstances in the case, petitioner/accused No.3 has filed the petition. Learned counsel has submitted that even on earlier occasion also the petitioner approached this Court seeking his release on bail of the alleged offences and this Court by its order dated 23.06.2014 passed in Crl.P.3136/2014 a/w Crl.P.3137/2014 rejected the petition in respect of petitioners herein. Learned counsel has submitted that the respondent police sought custody of the petitioners by filing an application before the JMFC Court, which came to be rejected, thereafter, they approached the Sessions Court and learned Sessions Judge has also rejected the request for police custody of the petitioners and ultimately, the respondent-police approached this Court by filing the petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. requesting to quash the orders passed by the JMFC Court and Sessions Court and for police custody of petitioners. Learned counsel has submitted that now the said petition is disposed of and same has been dismissed by this court. He has also submitted that as per the complaint averments and nature of the allegations, it show that the transaction is of the year 2006 and it is civil in nature. Hence, he submitted that even according to the prosecution case, the complainant has already filed the civil suit, which is pending before the City Civil Court at Bangalore. Learned counsel further submitted that looking to the said suit it is only against accused No.1 and one K.G.Krishna, who is said to be the agent of the complainant. Hence, he submitted that even according to the prosecution case, the complainant has already filed the civil suit, which is pending before the City Civil Court at Bangalore. Learned counsel further submitted that looking to the said suit it is only against accused No.1 and one K.G.Krishna, who is said to be the agent of the complainant. Hence, he submitted that so far as the petitioner/accused No.3 is concerned absolutely there is no material on record about his involvement in committing the alleged offence. Learned counsel for the petitioner/accused No.3 has further submitted that even according to the prosecution, investigation is completed and charge sheet has been filed. The alleged offences are also not exclusively punishable with death or imprisonment for life. He has also submitted that since from the date of arrest petitioner/accused No.3 is in custody, his continuation in custody is not at all required as the investigation is already completed. Hence, submitted that by imposing reasonable conditions petitioner/accused No.3 may be enlarged on bail. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner/accused No.2 during the course of his arguments submitted that so far as petitioner/accused No.2 is concerned, prosecution has not placed satisfactory material to show his involvement in the alleged offence. He has submitted that prior to the filing of the complaint, the respondent Police also made similar complaint for the offences against the petitioners and others before Chennamanakere Achhukattu police station on 02.11.2013. Learned counsel has submitted that contents of the complaint in both the cases are one and the same. Hence, he submitted that this itself shows false implication of the petitioner/accused No.2. Learned counsel has submitted that, as on the date of the complaint complainant was not the Managing Director of the Company, hence, she cannot file the complaint. It is his further submission that in the suit filed before the City Civil Court, petitioner/accused No.2 is not arrayed as defendant in that suit. He has also submitted that request of the prosecution seeking the custody of the petitioner for interrogation has been rejected by this Court in Criminal Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner/accused No.2 has submitted that because of the political rivalry and to take revenge on the petitioner, he has been falsely implicated in the case and has been arrayed as accused No.2. Learned counsel for the petitioner/accused No.2 has submitted that because of the political rivalry and to take revenge on the petitioner, he has been falsely implicated in the case and has been arrayed as accused No.2. He has submitted that the alleged offences are not exclusively punishable with death or imprisonment for life and the petitioner is ready to abide by any conditions to be imposed by this Court. Learned counsel has further submitted that with regards to the alleged offence of conspiracy between the petitioner and other accused persons, no material has been placed by the prosecution. Hence, submitted to allow the petition by imposing reasonable conditions. 7. In support of their contentions, the learned counsel for petitioners/accused Nos.2 and 3 have relied upon the decisions field along with the memo dated 22.09.2014 and 23.09.2014. 8. As against this, learned Spl.PP during the course of his arguments submitted that though the investigation is completed and the charge sheet has been filed the further investigation in the matter is still going on to ascertain the involvement of any other accused persons in the case and the same is mentioned in the charge sheet also. Learned Spl.PP has also submitted that it is the case, wherein, the accused persons conspired to cheat the complainant by creating false and fabricated documents. He has submitted that though site No.8 was not at all in existence in the layout said to have been formed by the Bhavani Housing Co-operative Society but even then these two petitioners along with other accused persons told the complainant that there is such a site in the layout formed by the said Society, they are firstly going to take the sale deeds in their name and then they will execute the sale deed in favour of the complainant and they have already received the amount to the tune of Rs.1.5 Crores, which were paid by issuing pay orders as told by accused No.1. He has also submitted that petitioners have not only involved in this case, they are also involved in seven other cases, which were of a similar type and thereby cheated the people and looted their money. 9. He has also submitted that petitioners have not only involved in this case, they are also involved in seven other cases, which were of a similar type and thereby cheated the people and looted their money. 9. Learned Spl.PP has submitted that, it is true that the criminal petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C has been dismissed by this Court but that is not the only ground on which the earlier bail petitions were rejected by this Court. Pendency of criminal proceedings in the petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C was one of the reasons for rejecting the earlier bail petition. Hence, he has submitted that there are no fresh grounds in these two petitions to allow the petitions and to release the petitioners on bail. The absconding accused persons are yet to be traced and interrogated by the Investigating Officer and the further report as per Section 173(8) of Cr.P.C is to be filed in the matter. Hence, he has submitted to reject the petitions. 10. I have perused the averments made in both the bail petitions, common objection statement filed by respondent opposing the bail petitions, charge sheet material from the CD file produced by the learned Spl.PP containing investigation material, the documents produced by the learned counsel for petitioner/accused No.3 along with memo dated 17.09.2014 so also perused the decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners in respect of both the petition. 11. Perusing the case of the prosecution, one Smt.Kanta Jain, the Managing Director of KCS Investment Consultancy Pvt. Ltd., filed the complaint, making the allegations that, as their firm was desirous of acquiring about 10,000-15,000/- square feet of land for the purpose of construction of the residential complex. Their company's agent one K.G.Krishna entered into an agreement (MOU) with the complainant on 19.05.2006. Then, the said Krishna told that he will enquire with the persons, who are the real estate businessmen by name Sundar Raj, Shivaraj/accused No.2 and H.S. Suresh/accused No.3. It is also the allegation in the complaint that accused No.3 in order to show the required site took the complainant and company's agent Krishna to the layout formed by Bhavani Housing Co-operative Society. Accused Nos.1 to 3 have assured the complainant to fulfill the requirement of site in the said layout. It is also the allegation in the complaint that accused No.3 in order to show the required site took the complainant and company's agent Krishna to the layout formed by Bhavani Housing Co-operative Society. Accused Nos.1 to 3 have assured the complainant to fulfill the requirement of site in the said layout. When the complainant company again asked the said three persons about the documents, with regards to the said property they told that documents will be available only to the members of the society and they are members and they have to pay the amount for getting the property into their name. They asked K.G.Krishna to pay the amount for purchase of the site alleging that they are not possessing that much money and accordingly, as per their request payment was made to accused No.1 on his request, to persons named by him. After making the payments also, when accused persons have not executed the sale deed, the complainant approached the BDA and came to know that there was no such site formed in the layout of Bhavani Housing Co-operative Society. When complainant insisted accused persons either to execute the sale deed or to repay the money, they told that they will give the cheques as security for the amount and when those cheques were presented for the bank, they were dishonored. In the complaint it is also alleged that there are many criminal cases filed against the petitioners in different police stations for similar offences. Hence, the complaint has been filed against the petitioners and other accused persons for the alleged offences. 12. Perusing the materials on record, they show that on earlier occasion also these two petitioners approached this Court by filing the petition in Crl.P.No.3136/2014 and this Court after considering the materials placed on record passed the order dated 23.06.2014 and rejected the petition in respect of petitioners herein. I have perused the said bail order. All such contentions raised by the petitioners in the present petitions, were also raised in the earlier petition and in the earlier petition this Court has taken into consideration the entire merits and ultimately held that prosecution has made out the case about the involvement of petitioners in committing the alleged offences. 13. I have perused the said bail order. All such contentions raised by the petitioners in the present petitions, were also raised in the earlier petition and in the earlier petition this Court has taken into consideration the entire merits and ultimately held that prosecution has made out the case about the involvement of petitioners in committing the alleged offences. 13. Now the only changed circumstance as canvassed by the petitioners herein is that the criminal petition filed by the State under Section 482 of Cr.P.C before this Court has been dismissed, but perusing the earlier order of this Court, that was not the only ground on which the earlier petition was rejected, there are other materials, which were considered by this Court to say that there is prima-facie case against the petitioners. There is also material that many criminal cases of similar type were registered against the petitioners in different police stations. As contended by the prosecution, investigation is still going on and some of the other accused persons are still absconding. Hence, considering all these aspects of the matter, I am of the opinion that petitioners have not made out the case for their release on bail at this stage. Accordingly, both the petitions are hereby rejected.