Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 1472 (KAR)

Pavadeppa v. State Of Karnataka

2020-07-23

SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR

body2020
JUDGMENT Shivashankar Amarannavar, J. - This petition is filed by the Accused Nos.1 to 3 under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. seeking anticipatory bail in Raibag P.S.Crime No.73/2020 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 504 and 506 r/w. Section 34 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, one Bahubali Ashok Kaddu of Kuedachi in Raibag Taluk is the complainant and he was having a open plot at Kole Plot area in Kudachi Municipality limits bearing T.M.C. No.1868/31/A measuring 1897.2 sq. ft. Accused No.1 - Pavadeppa and complainant are acquainted with each other. It is stated in the complaint that in the last week of January, 2020, complainant asked accused No.1 for financial help. Accused No.1 agreed to help on a condition to execute agreement in respect of above said plot in his favour. Thereupon, all the accused came to Kudachi and got executed the registered agreement pertaining to the above said property by showing its worth Rs.60,00,000/-. When complainant told them, he is not interested in selling his plot, they told that it is only for security purpose and after execution of the document, they will pay the money. Hence, the complainant put his signature on the agreement and it was registered on 23.01.2020 in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Raibag. In that registered document, it has been falsely shown as complainant has received Rs.15,00,000/- from accused through cheque Nos.000087, 000088 & 000089 drawn on ICICI Bank, Rabakavi and received Rs.8,10,000/- in cash. But they did not give money to complainant as agreed. They went on postponing payment of money even after repeated requests of complainant to give the above said cheques and cash, they have not paid the same. Now they are saying, they will not pay the money. They abused him in vulgar language and gave life threat. In pursuance of the said complaint, the police have registered the case. On registering the case, the police officials are making attempts to arrest the petitioners. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned HCGP for the respondent- State. 4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that, the entire dispute is of the civil nature and police ought not have registered the case against the petitioners. On registering the case, the police officials are making attempts to arrest the petitioners. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned HCGP for the respondent- State. 4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that, the entire dispute is of the civil nature and police ought not have registered the case against the petitioners. He further submitted that, the complainant has not encashed the said cheques issued by the petitioners/accused persons. He further submitted that the petitioner Nos.1 and 2 are government servants and petitioner No.3 is agriculturist and they are residing in their respective addresses as shown in the cause title. 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 HCGP strenuously contended that, the accused persons have not given cash and cheques as mentioned in the sale agreement and they have cheated the complainant. The investigation is not yet completed and the presence of the petitioners/accused persons are required for the custodial interrogation. In the event of granting anticipatory bail, they are likely to misuse the liberty and cause obstruction to the investigation. 6. In the present case, the agreement which has been produced by the counsel for the petitioner indicate that, the complainant has executed the sale agreement in favour of the petitioner No.2/accused No.2 for the sale consideration of Rs.60,00,000/- and received advance amount of Rs.15,00,000/- through cheques and Rs.8,10,000/- by cash. The said document is registered on 23.01.2020. 7. The complainant after two months has come up with the complaint that he has not received the said cheques and cash. It appears that the dispute between the petitioners and the complainant is of civil nature. 8. The Hon'ble Apex Court in a decision reported in the case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre Vs. 7. The complainant after two months has come up with the complaint that he has not received the said cheques and cash. It appears that the dispute between the petitioners and the complainant is of civil nature. 8. The Hon'ble Apex Court in a decision reported in the case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre Vs. 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; 9. The main contention of the learned HCGP 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. 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. 10. 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 The Petition is allowed. Petitioners are directed to appear before the Investigating Officer within fifteen days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. On their appearance, Investigating Officer shall interrogate the petitioners and shall enlarge them on bail subject to following: 1. The petitioners shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One lakh) each with one surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer; 2. The petitioners shall appear before the Investigating 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. The petitioners shall appear before the Investigating 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. The petitioners shall mark their attendance in respondent-Police Station on every Sunday until submission of the final report.