Allowed

Shri. Virapuram Madhusudan v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC20 Jan 2021CRL.P/100110/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Criminal Petition seeking anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for offences of cheating and criminal breach of trust was allowed. The Court upheld the fears regarding arrest and imposed specific conditions including a bond, surrender requirement, and restrictions on leaving the jurisdiction.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on bail in event of arrest, subject to personal bond with two sureties, surrender within 15 days for regular bail, non-interference with witnesses, and no departure from jurisdicti

Shri. Virapuram Madhusudan Vs the State of Karnataka — Cheating and Forgery | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶2

DATED THIS THE 20^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2021

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE K. NATARAJAN CRIMINAL PETITION NO.100110/2021

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

SHRI. VIRAPURAM MADHUSUDAN S/O. VIRAPURAM PRABHANJAN RAO AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, RESIDING AT D.NO.44/1, 2^ND MAIN ROAD, PARVATHI NAGAR, BALLARI DIST. BALLARI 583 103.

¶7

...PETITIONER

¶8

(BY SRI. SURAJ MUTNAL S., ADVOCATE)

¶9

AND:

¶10

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH BELAGAVI MARKET POLICE REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH, DHARWAD 580 008.

¶11

…RESPONDENT

¶12

(BY SRI. RAMESH B. CHIGARI, HCGP)

¶13

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 438 OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO GRANT ANTICIPATORY BAIL TO THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.3 IN CRIME NO.89/2017 OF BELAGAVI MARKET POLICE WHICH IS REGISTERED AS CC NO.946/2017 FOR OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 406 AND 420 OF IPC PENDING ON THE FILE OF HON’BLE II JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS AT BELAGAVI AND DIRECT THE RESPONDENT POLICE TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN THE EVENT OF HE BEING ARRESTED BY THE RESPONDENT POLICE.

¶14

¶15

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING/VIDEO CONFERENCING HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

ORDER

¶17

Learned HCGP takes notice for the respondent – State.

¶18

This petition is filed by the petitioner/accused No.3 under Section 438 Cr.P.C. praying for grant of anticipatory bail in connection with Crime No.89/2017 charge sheeted by the Belagavi Market Police, for the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 of the IPC.

¶19

The case of the petitioner is that, the complainant one Rajesh J. Andraj has filed a private complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. against four persons by showing the accused No.1 as a private limited company, which is involved in the real estate business. It is alleged by the complainant that he has paid money for the purpose of purchase of site, but the site was not allotted to him and they were not available for contact and thereby the accused are said to have misappropriated the amount of `1,06,000/- paid by the complainant while executing the agreement of sale. After referring the private complaint to the police, the

¶20

¶21

police registered the FIR in Crime No.89/2017 on 10.03.2017. After completion of investigation, charge sheet is filed on 09.10.2017. After filing of the charge sheet, by taking cognizance, the trail Court issued Non-bailable Warrant to the accused persons and thereby the petitioner/accused No.3 is apprehending his arrest in the hands of the police for having committed non-bailable offence punishable under Sections 406 and 420 of the IPC. Hence he approached the Sessions Judge for grant of anticipatory bail, which came to be rejected on 17.08.2020. Hence he is before this Court seeking anticipatory bail.

¶22

Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner is innocent of the alleged offences. He has been falsely implicated in the case. In fact the complaint came to be filed in the year 2015, but the petitioner was already retired from the company in the year 2013. The vague allegations are made in the complaint and there is no specific overt act or misappropriation of money by this petitioner. The offence is not punishable with death or imprisonment for life. He is ready to abide by any conditions. Hence he prayed for grant of bail to the petitioner.

¶23

¶24

Per contra, learned HCGP objected to the bail petition

¶25

and contended that the petitioner is absconding from the date of registration of the case. The alleged offences are non-bailable offences. The accused have cheated the complainant by receiving money without allotting the site. There is prima facie material placed on record to show that the petitioner has committed offence of misappropriation of the amount. Hence he prayed for dismissal of the petition.

¶26

Upon hearing the arguments and perusal of the records, it goes to show that, the complainant is said to have deposited some amount with accused No.1 – V3 Infrastructure and Estates Private Ltd, where the petitioner and other accused were the Directors and Managing Directors. The allegation in the complaint is that the company has not allotted the plot as agreed by them. However, the accused persons are said to have received the amount by way of cash by issuing the receipt as well as by cheque. The entire evidence is based upon the documentary evidence. The police investigated the case and filed the charge sheet. Except for the trial, the presence of the petitioner is no more required for the

¶27

¶28

purpose of any interrogation or investigation by the police. Though the alleged offence is non-bailable, but not punishable with death or imprisonment for life and it is triable by the Magistrate. The agreement of sale is entered between the complainant and the accused No.1 – Company. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, if the bail is granted to the petitioner by imposing stringent conditions, no prejudice would be caused to the case of the prosecution. Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶29

ORDER

¶30

Petition is allowed . The respondent-Belagavi Market police is

¶31

hereby directed to release the petitioner/accused No.3 on bail in the event of his arrest in Crime No.89/2017 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 of the IPC, subject to the following conditions:

¶32

i. The petitioner shall execute a personal bond for a sum of `50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) with two sureties for the likesum to the

¶33

¶34

satisfaction of the Investigating Officer or the trial Court.

¶35

ii. The petitioner shall surrender himself before the Investigating Officer or before the trial Court within 15 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order and seek for regular bail by filing an application under Section 437 Cr.P.C.

¶36

iii. The petitioner shall not tamper the prosecution witnesses directly or indirectly in any manner.

¶37

iv. The petitioner shall not indulge in similar offences.

¶38

v. The petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Court without prior permission.

¶39

Sd/JUDGE

¶40

gab

Shri. Virapuram Madhusudan v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri. Virapuram Madhusudan 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

T Basavaraj S/O. T Basappa, Vs the State by Ittigi

Nagendra S/O Mallappa Kabbur Vs Sharanabasappa S/O Siddramappa Umachagi

Pruthviraj S/O Shankar Swamy Vs State of Karnataka

Mallikarjuna S/O. Ramu Nayak Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. Venakatesh Nayak S/O Durgya Nayak Vs the State of Karnataka

Basavaraj S/O Rudrappa Dundanatti Vs the State of Karnataka