Allowed

Khajameer S/O Basir Saab v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC6 Jul 2020CRL.P/100590/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal petition under Section 438 CrPC for anticipatory bail, the High Court of Karnataka allowed the plea. The petitioner, accused of cheating and threats, was ordered to execute a personal bond with sureties, seek regular bail within a week, and adhere to several restrictions regarding witness tampering and court attendance.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail allowed on personal bond of Rs. 1,00,000/- with two sureties; petitioner to seek regular bail in one week.

Khajameer S/O Basir Saab Vs the State of Karnataka — Cheating and Forgery | Karnataka HC (2020)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶3

DATED THIS THE 6^{T H} DAY OF JULY, 2020

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK G NIJAGANNAVAR

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.100590/2020

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

KHAJAMEER S/O BASIR SAAB AGE: 59 YEARS, OCC: SECRETARY OF VSSN BANNIKALLU VILLAGE, R/O: K.V.O.R. COLONY, MALLIGE VANA, H.B. HALLI, H.B. HALLI TALUK, DIST: BALLARI.

¶9

... PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI SRINAND A PACHHAPURE, ADVOCATE.)

¶11

AND:

¶12

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH TB HALLI POLICE STATION, NOW REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH, AT DHARWAD.

¶13

... RESPONDENT

¶14

(BY SRI PRAVEEN K. UPPAR, HCGP.)

¶15

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 438 OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE,

¶16

¶17

PRAYING TO GRANT ANTICIPATORY BAIL TO THE PETITIONER/ ACCUSED IN THE EVENT OF HIS ARREST IN CRIME NO.25/2020 REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 504, 417, 420, 506 OF IPC, BY T.B.HALLI P.S., H.B.HALLI TALUK, DIST. BALLARI, ETC.,.

¶18

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

ORDER

¶20

This petition is filed by the accused under section 438 of Cr.P.C., for release on bail in the event of his arrest in Crime No.25/2020 of T.B.Halli Police Station, H.B.Halli taluk, registered for the offences punishable under sections 504, 417, 420, 506 of IPC.

¶21

The facts briefly stated in the petition are that, on the complaint filed by one Smt.Jayamma W/o.Hanumantappa, resident of Bannikallu village, the police have registered the case. The allegations are that the complainant had a loan account with VSSN Society and had borrowed loan by pledging her agricultural land.

¶22

¶23

The said loan was cleared under the loan waiver scheme. Thereafter she had not borrowed loan from the said society. The petitioner/accused being the secretary of VSSN Society, had taken LTMs on some blank documents and had opened the account. After waiver of the loan, the complainant had gone to the society several times for seeking loan clearance certificate, but the petitioner secretary went on delaying the issuance of the certificate on one or the other pretext. Therefore when the complainant went along with the elders of the village, the accused abused them. Then on 12.3.2020 when the complainant enquired in BDCC Bank, H.B.Halli branch, it was learnt that the petitioner/accused had operated the account standing in her name and had withdrawn the amount by making use of ATM card. On enquiry, the petitioner informed that he has operated the account belonging to her and has withdrawn the amount making use of the ATM

¶24

¶25

card issued in her name and has also threatened

¶26

to take away her life. In pursuance of the said complaint, the police have registered the case and making attempts to arrest the petitioner.

¶27

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned HCGP for the

¶28

respondent State. Perused the prosecution papers available at this stage.

¶29

The main allegations in the complaint

¶30

are that the petitioner/accused caused delay in issuance of loan clearance certificate and has also operated the bank account in the name of the complainant and has made several transactions and on enquiry, he has threatened the complainant with dire consequences.

¶31

During the course of arguments, the

¶32

learned counsel for the petitioner relying on two documents, namely, a letter said to have been

¶33

¶34

issued by a lady by name Jayamma D/o.Hanumantavva, resident of Bannikallu and the letter issued by the Manager, BDCC Bank, Ballari, submitted that the ATM card issued by BDCC Bank was delivered to a lady by name Jayamma D/o.Hanumantavva instead of the complainant Jayamma W/o.Hanumantappa. The said ATM card was used by Jayamma D/o.Hanumantavva and she has withdrawn the amount. Later, when the said lady has realized that she has misused the ATM card, she has deposited the amount of Rs.70,400/- utilized by her by making use of the ATM card. The same has been confirmed by the letter issued by the Manager of BDCC Bank. The petitioner being the honest employee has not misused the funds belonging to the complainant. He has been falsely implicated in this case only because of the delay caused in issuance of loan clearance certificate to

¶35

¶36

the complainant. The documents produced

¶37

support the said contention.

¶38

The facts and circumstances of the case and submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner goes to prove the apprehension of arrest and detention. Admittedly the petitioner is the secretary of the VSS society and residing at the address shown in the cause title. The said facts are not disputed or denied by the prosecution. The only objection of the prosecution is that in the event of granting bail, the accused is likely to abscond and interfere with the investigation. The said objection may be set right by imposing stringent conditions.

¶39

For the foregoing discussions, this Court is of the view that there are valid grounds for granting anticipatory bail, subject to certain terms and conditions. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:

¶40

¶41

ORDER

¶42

The petition filed under section 438 of Cr.P.C. is allowed.

¶43

The petitioner/accused shall be released on bail in the event of his arrest in Crime No.25/2020 of T.B.Halli P.S., H.B.Halli taluk, on his executing personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (one lakh rupees only) with two sureties for the like sum to the satisfaction of the concerned Investigating Officer.

¶44

The petitioner/accused shall appear before the concerned Investigating Officer within a period of one week from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order and shall seek for regular bail.

¶45

The petitioner/accused shall not indulge in tampering the prosecution witnesses.

¶46

The petitioner/accused shall mark his attendance in the concerned police station on

¶47

¶48

every Sunday between 10.00 a.m. to 5.00 p.m., till filing of the charge sheet.

¶49

The petitioner/accused shall not leave the jurisdiction of the trial Court without prior permission, till the disposal of the case.

¶50

If the petitioner/accused violates any of the conditions, the bail order automatically stands cancelled.

¶51

Sd/JUDGE

¶52

Mrk/-

Khajameer S/O Basir Saab v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Khajameer S/O Basir Saab v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri.S.Ram Das Naik S/O Late Somala Naik Vs the State of Karnataka

Shri.Rajendra Banduji Patil Vs State of Karnataka

Mahesh S/O. Veerappa Lakkannavar, Vs Gangawwa @ Mala W/O. Mahesh Lakkannavar

Sri.Manjunath S/O Ningappa Yeddalli Vs the State of Karnataka

Maltesh S/O. Chikkappa Nellibidu Vs Sunita W/O. Parameshappa Kadappanavar

Manjunath S/O Maruti Barker Vs the State of Karnataka