Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 1318 (KAR)

Rajendra Banduji Patil v. State Of Karnataka

2020-07-03

ASHOK G.NIJAGANNAVAR

body2020
JUDGMENT Ashok G Nijagannavar, J. - This petition is filed by the accused Nos.1 to 15 under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. seeking anticipatory bail in Katkol Police Station Crime No.9 of 2020 for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 323, 406, 409, 420, 504 and 506 read with Section 149 of IPC directing the Police to release the petitioners on bail in the event of their arrest. 2. The brief factual matrix of the case as stated in the petition are that, on the complaint filed by Sri Sangappa Shivasangappa Kankanameli, the Police have registered the case. The allegations are that, the complainant being the owner of the trucks had entered into an agreement with the Management of the Factory by name Shri Shivasagar Sugar and Agro Products Ltd., Udapudi . It is the case of the complainant that, in the year 2014, the Management of the factory had agreed to engage the trucks for transportation of the sugarcane, in this regard, an agreement was executed by the complainant in favour of the factory. At the time of execution of the agreement, the factory had insisted for advance amount. The said amount was arranged by the complainant by borrowing loan from the bank for which the factory itself was the guarantor for the said loan. The loan sanctioned to the complainant was received by the factory. Thereafter, the management of the factory had failed to give the advance amount to the complainant. Despite compliance of all the conditions of the agreement, the management of the factory had failed to pay the advance amount as loan. On enquiry by the complainant, they assured that the matter would be settled. Inspite of repeated requests and reminders the petitioners failed to fulfill their part of the obligation. When the complainant approached the petitioners, they have abused and assaulted him and have also threatened to takeaway his life. In pursuance of the said complaint, the Police have registered the case. On registering the case, Police officials are making attempts to arrest the petitioners. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Additional Advocate General assisted by learned counsel for the complainant. Perused the prosecution records available at this stage. 4. In pursuance of the said complaint, the Police have registered the case. On registering the case, Police officials are making attempts to arrest the petitioners. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Additional Advocate General assisted by learned counsel for the complainant. Perused the prosecution records available at this stage. 4. It is the submission of the learned senior counsel for the petitioners that the entire dispute and the financial transaction between the complainant and the factory management is of a civil nature. Since the complainant had failed to fulfill his part of the obligation, the factory management was unable to pay the advance amount. The allegations made against these petitioners are false and baseless. They have been falsely implicated in this case. In the event of their arrest and detention, they would be put to great hardship and injustice. 5. Per Contra, the learned Additional Advocate General strenuously contended that the management of the factory by giving false assurance to the complainant and truck owners has managed to swindle the money and thereby has committed the act of cheating. The investigation is not yet completed. The presence of the petitioners is required for custodial interrogation. In the event of granting anticipatory bail, they are likely to misuse the liberty and cause obstruction to the investigation. This matter is referred to CID for further investigation. The petitioners are absconding and they are not yet traced. 6. A fundamental postulate of criminal jurisprudence is the presumption of innocence, meaning thereby that a person believed to be innocent until found guilty. However, there are instances in our criminallaw where a reverse onus has been placed on an accused. Yet another important facet of our criminal jurisprudence is that the grant of bail is the general rule and putting a person in jai l is an exception. No doubt the grant or denial of bail is entirely the discretion of the Judge considering a case, but even so, the exercise of judicial discretion has been circumscribed by large number of decisions rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and all High Courts in our country. Yet occasionally it is necessary to introspect such denying of bail to an accused person is a right thing to do on the facts and in circumstances of a case. 7. Yet occasionally it is necessary to introspect such denying of bail to an accused person is a right thing to do on the facts and in circumstances of a case. 7. In the present case, the agreement which has been produced by the counsel for the petitioners indicate that, initially the complainant had agreed to provide service for transportation of sugarcane through his trucks. In pursuance of the agreement some amount was agreed to be given as a guaranty amount to the management of the factory and thereafter the factory management had to give the advance amount to the complainant to facilitate him to undertake the transportation work. In that process, the complainant had borrowed the loan to provide guaranty amount to the management of the factory for which the factory itself was the guarantor. It appears that after receiving the guaranty amount, the management of the factory has failed to pay the advance amount on the reason that the complainant has failed to fulfill the conditions of the agreement. all these matters are required to be adjudicated by the civil courts. At this stage, what is required to be considered is whether there are any valid grounds to show that the petitioners have been falsely implicated? 8. During the course of argument, the learned Senior Counsel Sri .Ravi B. Naik submitted that the nature and circumstances of the case clearly goes to show that the complainant having committed default in fulfilling his part of the obligation, has tried to pressurize the management by filing a frivolous complaint. Having regard to the submission made by the learned Senior Counsel Sri .Ravi . B.Naik assisted by learned counsel for the complainant, this Court has gone through the prosecution records available at this stage. It is needless to make elaborate discussion or give specific finding about these records as the same is not permissible while considering the bail application. But however the facts of the case narrated by the petitioners and their submission clearly indicate their apprehension regarding arrest and detention. 9. It is needless to make elaborate discussion or give specific finding about these records as the same is not permissible while considering the bail application. But however the facts of the case narrated by the petitioners and their submission clearly indicate their apprehension regarding arrest and detention. 9. The Hon'ble Apex Court in a decision in the case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre V/s State of Maharashtra and others, (2011) 1 SCC 694 has narrated some factors and parameters to be taken into consideration while dealing with the anticipatory bail , as per the said guidelines, frivolity in prosecution should always be considered and it is only the element of genuineness that shall have to be considered in the matter of grant of bail and in the event of there being some doubt as to the genuineness of the prosecution, in the normal course of events, the accused is entitled to an order of bail . While considering the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail , a balance has to be struck between two factors, namely, no prejudice should be caused to the free, fair and full investigation and there should be prevention of harassment, humiliation and unjustified detention of the accused; 10. The main contention of the learned Additional Advocate General is that, the investigation is not yet completed. In the event of granting bail the petitioners are likely to abscond and interfere with the investigation to be done by the CID. Admittedly, the petitioners are the residents of address shown in the cause title, the said fact is not disputed by the other side. The objections of the prosecution can be set right by imposing stringent conditions. 11. In the instant case, this Court is of the view that, there are valid grounds for granting bail subject to certain terms and conditions. Accordingly, I pass the following: ORDER Criminal Petition is allowed. Petitioners are directed to appear before the Investigating Officer/CID officer within fifteen days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. On their appearance, Investigating Officer/CID Officer shall interrogate the petitioners and shall enlarge them on bail subject to following : 1. The petitioners shall furnish a personal bond in a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One lakh) each with two sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer/CID officer; 2. On their appearance, Investigating Officer/CID Officer shall interrogate the petitioners and shall enlarge them on bail subject to following : 1. The petitioners shall furnish a personal bond in a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One lakh) each with two sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer/CID officer; 2. The petitioners shall appear before the Investigating Officer/CID officer as and when required; 3. The petitioners shall co-operate in the investigation; 4. The petitioners shall not threaten or allure the prosecution witnesses; 5. In the event of registration of any other criminal case in respect of commission of similar offence, the present bail order shall stand cancelled; 6. If the petitioners are found to have violated any of the bail conditions, the present bail order shall stand automatically cancelled; 7. The petitioners shall mark their attendance in respondent-Police Station on every Sunday until submission of the final report.