Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 1623 (KAR)

Ashok K. v. State of Karnataka

2022-12-27

M.G.UMA

body2022
JUDGMENT M G Uma, J. - The petitioner-accused is before this Court seeking grant of anticipatory bail in Crime No.1093/2022 of South CEN Crime Police Station, DCP South Division, Bengaluru registered for the offences punishable under Sections 419 and 420 of Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC') and Sections 66(C) and 66(D) of Information Technology Act, 2008 (for short 'IT Act'), on the basis of the first information lodged by the informant - Shrinivasa Chari C. 2. Heard Sri Hitesh Gowda B.J., 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. Lea rned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is the sole accused. He has not committed any offences as alleged and he has falsely implicated in the matter without any basis. Even as per the first information, no offence is made out. The petitioner is having reasonable apprehension of being arrested by the Police. The petitioner is the permanent resident of the address mentioned in the cause title to the petition and there is no criminal antecedents as against him. He 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 in the interest of justice. 4. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader opposing the petition submitted that serious allegations are made against the petitioner for having committed the offence. He is absconding since from the date of registration of FIR. It is an online crypto currency fraud committed by the petitioner. Detailed investigation is required to be undertaken. Considering the nature and seriousness of the offence, the petitioner is not entitled for anticipatory bail. 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 438 of Cr.P.C.?' My answer to the above point is in 'Affirmative' for the following: REASONS 6. The informant lodged the first information with Cyber Crime Police on 31.10.2022. The subject mentioned in the information is online crypto currency fraud. The informant voluntarily deposited huge amount of Rs.45.00 lakhs to become the Director of the Company run by the petitioner. The informant lodged the first information with Cyber Crime Police on 31.10.2022. The subject mentioned in the information is online crypto currency fraud. The informant voluntarily deposited huge amount of Rs.45.00 lakhs to become the Director of the Company run by the petitioner. The informant states that recently he came to know that the Company run by the petitioner is a fraud and therefore, he requested the Police to help him in getting back the money. There are no details of fraud committed by the petitioner. Hence, I am of the opinion that the petitioner may be granted anticipatory bail subject to conditions, which will take care of the apprehensions expressed by the learned High Court Government Pleader that the petitioner may abscond or may tamper or threaten the prosecution witnesses. 7. 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 the event of his arrest in Crime No.1093/2022 of South CEN Crime Police Station, DCP South Division, Bengaluru. The petitioner is directed to appear before the Investigating Officer within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order and on his appearance, the Investigating Officer shall enlarge him on bail subject to the following conditions:- a. The petitioner shall furnish 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 Investigating Officer; b. The petitioner shall not commit similar offences; c. The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer or the court as and when required; and d. The petitioner shall not threaten or tamper the prosecution witnesses. On furnishing the sureties by the petitioner, the Investigating Officer is at liberty to verify the correctness of the address and authenticity of the documents furnished by him. On satisfaction of the said documents, he may proceed to accept the sureties within a reasonable time.