Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 2053 (KAR)

P. Raj Kiran v. State Of Karnataka

2020-10-15

SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR

body2020
JUDGMENT Sreenivas Harish Kumar, J. - Petitioner is accused No.1 in the charge sheet filed pursuant to FIR No. 37/2020 registered by the respondent police for the offences under sections 397, 364A, 348, 506 and 120B of IPC. 2. One Abhinav Singhal made a complaint to the police stating that on 13.5.2020 he was abducted by the petitioner and other accused, taken to a godown situated in the midst of a forest near Bannerghatta and assaulted severely. He also complained of snatching his gold chain, two rings, cash of Rs.37,000/-, cheque book and the documents of his car. He also alleged that Rs.55,000/- was withdrawn by making use of his ATM card. 3. Heard both sides. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that a false complaint has been made against the petitioner. Actually, the petitioner was with the complainant being a partner doing business in the name and style of 'Caf De Studio Lounge'. He invested an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- in the partnership business. The complainant is stated to have been abducted on 13.5.2020 and was in their custody till 20.5.2020, but the complaint was made on 22.5.2020. There is no explanation for the delay. Therefore, there might be manipulation of events. The seized money from the possession of the petitioner belonged to him. He refers to the statement of CW14, the owner of a car garage to argue that the petitioner and the complainant went to the car garage together for leaving the car there for service and it was the petitioner who collected the car after service was over. But, it is falsely shown that the car belonging to the complainant was seized from the petitioner. Therefore, it is not possible to hold at this stage that there is existence of prima facie materials regarding involvement of the petitioner in committing the offence. He further argues that investigation is over and that the petitioner is not at all required for further investigation. The petitioner is ready to abide by any conditions that the court imposes on him and that he will also regularly appear before the court. Therefore, he prays for allowing the petition. 5. The learned HCGP opposes the petition by submitting that there are ample materials against the petitioner. Recovery itself is enough to hold that the petitioner is involved in the commission of crime. Therefore, he prays for allowing the petition. 5. The learned HCGP opposes the petition by submitting that there are ample materials against the petitioner. Recovery itself is enough to hold that the petitioner is involved in the commission of crime. Though charge sheet is filed, but in view of ample materials being available, there are no grounds for granting bail. 6. The partnership deed is available being a part of the charge sheet. Perusal of the same discloses that on 4.3.2020, the complainant and the petitioner entered into a partnership agreement of doing a business in the name and style Caf De Studio Lounge and that the petitioner invested an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- and his share of profit and loss is shown to be 20%. But, in the complaint it is stated that the complainant entered into a partnership agreement with Aryan Putran. There is no document in evidence of the same. For this reason, first doubt arises with regard to the allegations made against the petitioner in the complaint. 7. The statement of CW14 discloses that both the petitioner and the complainant went to the car garage for leaving the car belonging to the complainant for service purpose and it was the petitioner who collected the car. Now it is shown that the car was seized from the petitioner's house. Probably, the petitioner might have brought the car from the garage but, the recovery cannot be connected with the allegations made against the petitioner. Therefore, if all these materials are taken into consideration, a doubt with regard to the veracity in the complaint arises. Sufficient materials are not forthcoming against the petitioner. Investigation is completed. He is a permanent resident of Bengaluru City and his presence can always be secured. Therefore, there is no impediment for granting the bail. Hence, I pass the following order : - (a) Petition is allowed. (b) Petitioner shall be released on bail on obtaining from him a bond for Rs.2,00,000/- and two sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the trial court. He is subjected to the following conditions : - (i) He shall regularly appear before the trial court till conclusion of trial. (ii) He shall not tamper with the evidence and threaten the witnesses.