Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 306 (KAR)

Ramesh v. State By Karnataka

2023-02-22

M G UMA

body2023
JUDGMENT/ORDER M G Uma, J. - The petitioner - accused No.1 is before this Court seeking grant of bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. in Crime No.24/2022 of Subramanyapura Police Station, Bengaluru, pending on the file of Principal City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore, registered for the offences punishable under Section 21 of the Banning of Unregulated Deposit Schemes, Act, 2019 r/w Sections 34, 420 and 417 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC'), on the basis of the first information lodged by the informant - Naveen P.V. 2. Heard Sri.H.N.Venkatesh, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri.Rahul Rai, 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 arrayed as accused No.1. He is innocent and has not committed any offences as alleged. He has been falsely implicated in the matter without any basis. He was apprehended on 13.12.2022 and since then he is in judicial custody. The informant has lodged the first information making false allegations against the petitioner that he was doing centring and bar bending work. The informant states that he has given money to the wife of the petitioner and executed the loan agreement. He also states that the wife of the petitioner has issued several cheques for repayment of the amount, but those cheques were dishonoured. The informant has not taken recourse to lodge the complaint for dishonour of the cheques. On the other hand, this complaint is filed invoking the provisions of the Banning of Unregulated Deposit Schemes Act and IPC. Accused Nos. 2 and 3 were never summoned by the Investigating Officer. There are absolutely nothing on record to invoke the provisions of the Special Enactment. The petitioner is the permanent resident of the address mentioned in the cause title to the petition 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. The allegation is that about ' 50 - 60 lakhs is due from the petitioner and other accused. Investigation is still under progress. Considering the serious and nature of the offences, the petitioner is not entitled to be enlarged on bail. The allegation is that about ' 50 - 60 lakhs is due from the petitioner and other accused. Investigation is still under progress. Considering the serious and nature of the offences, the petitioner is not entitled to be enlarged on 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 439 of Cr.P.C.?' My answer to the above point is in 'Affirmative' for the following: REASONS 6. The informant has lodged the first information making serious allegations. It is stated that the petitioner was working with the informant as bar bender. The wife of the petitioner was running the chit fund business and informant invested in the chit fund. An agreement is said to have been entered into between the petitioner and the accused. It is also alleged that several cheques were issued by the wife of the petitioner towards repayment of the amount but those cheques when presented for encashment but were dishonoured. Admittedly, no complaint was filed invoking Section 138 of the N.I.Act., in spite of making such allegations, it is not the contention of the prosecution that the petitioner is required to be detained in custody for any purpose, except to ensure his presence before the trial court. Under such circumstances, detention of the petitioner in custody would amount to infringement to his right to life and liberty. 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. 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 Crime No.24/2022 of Subramanyapura Police Station, Bengaluru, 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 threaten or tamper with the prosecution witnesses. c). 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 conditions as stated above, the prosecution will be at liberty to move the Trial Court seeking cancellation of bail. On furnishing the sureties by the petitioner, the Trial Court is at liberty to direct the Investigating Officer to verify the correctness of the address and authenticity of the documents furnished by the petitioner and the sureties and a report may be called for in that regard, which is to be submitted by the Investigating Officer within 5 days. The Trial Court on satisfaction, may proceed to accept the sureties for the purpose of releasing the petitioner on bail.