Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 1619 (KAR)

Vikram Prabhakar v. State of Karnataka

2022-12-22

S.RACHAIAH

body2022
JUDGMENT S. Rachaiah, J. - The petitioner-accused No.1 is before this Court seeking grant of bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. in Crime No.222/2022 of Kodigehalli Police Station, Bengaluru, registered for the offence of punishable under Sections 417, 420, 406, 506 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC'), on the basis of the first information lodged by the informant Sri. Deepu Kumar S. 2. Heard Sri. Mane Shivaji Hanamantappa, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. H.S. Shankar, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent -State. Perused the materials on record. 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is innocent and has not committed any offence. He has been falsely implicated in the matter without any basis. He was apprehended on 24.11.2022 and since then he is in judicial custody. It is further submitted that the dispute is purely civil in nature and there is a contractual obligations between the complainant and the petitioner, the petitioner has not executed any sale deed. He is a reputed businessman, resident of Bangalore, he has no bad antecedents and he is the earning member of family and is ready and willing to abide by any of the conditions that would be imposed by this Court. Hence, he prays to allow the petition. 4. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader opposing the petition submitted that serious allegations are made against the petitioner for having committed the offences. It is further submitted that the petitioner being a builder has cheated many people by selling 14,885 sq.ft. of commercial complex places inspite of agreement of sale having been made or entered into with the complainant. Therefore, he is not entitled for the relief as stated in this petition. Hence, he prays for dismissal of the petition. 5. In view of the rival contentions urged by the learned counsel for both the parties, the point that would arise for my consideration is: 'Whether the petitioner is entitled for grant of bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C.?' My answer to the above point is in the 'Affirmative' for the following: REASONS 6. 5. In view of the rival contentions urged by the learned counsel for both the parties, the point that would arise for my consideration is: 'Whether the petitioner is entitled for grant of bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C.?' My answer to the above point is in the 'Affirmative' for the following: REASONS 6. On perusal of the complaint and its averments it appears that complainant Deepu Kumar S. lodged complaint stating that in the year 2015 at the instance of Zakir Hussain who has arraigned as accused no.6 met the petitioner who is Managing Director of V.S.P.L. (Vikram Structures Pvt., Ltd.,) and entered into agreement of sale in respect of 2000 sq. ft. commercial place and agreed to sell the same for a sum of Rs.1,06,00,000/-. The said agreement is of dated 19.01.2017 and assured that the said place would be handed over to the complainant in the month of June 2017. However, the petitioner herein has sold the said commercial places to some other person in order to cheat the complainant. Hence, this complaint. 7. It appears that the police have registered the case, even though, the entire transaction appears to be civil in nature. The allegations made out in the complaint are contractual in nature. There is no colour of criminality appeared in the averments in the complaint. Prima facie, without adverting to the merit of the case, this Court being satisfied with the submission made by the learned counsel granting the bail by imposing suitable conditions hence, I am of the opinion that the petitioner is entitled to be enlarged on bail subject to conditions which will take care of the apprehension expressed by the learned High Court Government Pleader that the petitioner may abscond or may tamper or threaten the prosecution witnesses. Accordingly, I answer the above point in the affirmative and proceed to pass the following: ORDER The petition is allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be enlarged on bail in Crime No.222/2022 of Kodigehalli Police Station, Bengaluru, registered for the offence of punishable under Sections 417, 420, 406, 506 and 149 of IPC on obtaining the bond in a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only) with two sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court, subject to the following conditions: a). The petitioner shall not commit similar offences. b). The petitioner shall not commit similar offences. b). The petitioner shall not threaten or tamper with the prosecution witnesses. c). The petitioner shall appear before the Court as and when required. If in case, the petitioner violates any of the bail conditions as stated above, the prosecution will be at liberty to seek for cancellation of bail.