Allowed

N. Gayathri D/O.B.K.Narashime Goweda v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC8 Feb 2021CRL.P/100153/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal petition for bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. in a cheating case involving illegal R.D. collection. The court observed prolonged detention, completed investigation, and prior bail to main accused, granting bail subject to standard conditions.

What did the court decide?

Criminal petition allowed; accused released on bail subject to execution of personal bond of Rs.2,00,000 and compliance with conditions against tampering.

N. Gayathri D/O.B.K.Narashime Goweda Vs the State of… — Cheating and Forgery | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶2

DATED THIS THE 8^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE K. NATARAJAN

¶5

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.100153/2021

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

N.GAYATHRI D/O.B.K.NARASHIME GOWEDA, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, GENERAL MANAGER, NO.73, 3^RD FLOOR, MADESHWARA COMPLEX, SREE MAHADESHWARA MAIN ROAD,

¶8

NAZIYABAD, MYSORE,

¶9

R/AT BELLALA VILLAGE, PANDAVAPURA TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT-571 434.

¶10

U.L.VASANTHA KUMAR,

¶11

S/O.LAKSHMANGOWEDA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,

¶12

OCC-NIL.

¶13

SMT U.L.DAKSHYANI W/O.B.L.RAVINDRANATH, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, OCC-NIL, (PETITIONER NOS.2 AND 3 ARE R/AT)

¶14

NO.66 F, SVP NAGARA,

¶15

T.N.PURA ROAD, MYSORE -570 028.

¶16

PRESENT ADDRESS

¶17

NO.109, D.MAX SANVIL APARTMENT

¶18

KENGARI MAIN ROAD, MALLATHAHALLI,

¶19

¶20

BALAJI LAYOUT, BENGALURU-560 056, PERMANENT ADDRESS, UDUSA VILLAGE, GONIBEEDU HOBLI, MUDUGARI TALUK, CHICKKAMANGALUR DISTRICT-577 132.

¶21

.. PETITIONERS

¶22

(BY SRI VIJAY M.MALALI AND SRI.AJAY KUMAR, ADVOCATES)

¶23

AND:

¶24

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY KOPPAL TOWN POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY S.P.P., HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, PIN NO.560 011.

¶25

.. RESPONDENT

¶26

(BY MISS SEEMA SHIVA NAIK, HCGP)

¶27

THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 OF CR.P.C. AND PRAYED TO ENLARGE THEM ON REGULAR BAIL IN CRIME NO.154/2014, KOPPAL TOWN P.S. AGAINST PETITIONERS FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 420 AND 120B READ WITH SECTION 34 OF IPC AND SECTION 9 OF THE KARNATAKA PROTECTION OF INTEREST OF DEPOSITORS IN FINANCIAL ESTABLISHMENT ACT 2004, SPECIAL CC(KPIDFC) NO.1/2017 PENDING BEFORE IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, AT KOPPAL, THEY MAY RELEASE ON REGULAR BAIL.

¶28

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

¶29

¶30

O R D E R

¶31

The petitioners/accused Nos.2, 5 and 6 filed this petition under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. for granting regular bail in Crime No.154/2014 registered by Koppal Town Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 420 and 120B read with Section 34 of IPC and Section 9 of the Karnataka Protection of Interest of Depositors in Financial Establishment Act, 2004.

¶32

It is the case of prosecution that the accused No.1 said to be the Managing Director of Green Birds Agro Farms Limited company. The present petitioner/accused No.2 is the Manager and accused Nos.5 and 6 are the Directors of the said Company. They have collected huge money from the public in the scheme of R.D. monthly 100/- deposited for 5 years, they have assured to their customers that they will pay 10,000/- after 5 years. Thereafter, they closed their business through the several branches. Infact they have collected `13,58,850/- from the 267 customers thereby they cheated the customers. Hence, a complaint came to be filed before the police and in turn the police have arrested the accused No.2 on 26.11.2015, accused No.5 on 24.04.2018 and accused No.6 on

¶33

¶34

28.03.2018 and they have remanded to judicial custody. The petitioners have approached the Sessions Judge for granting bail, which came to be rejected on 05.12.2020. Hence, they are before this Court.

¶35

The learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that the petitioners are innocent of the alleged offences and they have been falsely implicated in this case. Accused No.2 is only a Manager and worker in the said company. Accused Nos.5 and 6 are the Directors of the said Company. But main accused in this case has already granted bail. Even these petitioners have also granted bail by this Court in Crime No.171/2014 of Harapanahalli Police Station. Investigation of the case is already completed and charge sheet is also filed. Petitioners/accused Nos.2, 5 and 6 are in judicial custody for more than 5 years and 3 months by accused No.2 and accused Nos.5 an 6 in custody for 2 years and 8 months. They are ready to abide by any conditions to be imposed by this Court. Hence, he prayed for rejecting the petition.

¶36

Per Contra , the learned HCGP Miss Seema Shiva Naik, objected the bail petition and contended that petitioners are

¶37

¶38

committed heinous offence by cheating the huge number of public. They have collected more than `13 lakhs from the spot and they have committed the similar offences and cheated the public in various districts of Karnataka State. Therefore, she prayed for rejecting the bail petition.

¶39

Upon hearing the arguments addressed by both sides and on perusal of the records, admittedly, the petitioner No.1/accused No.2 said to be arrested on 26.11.2015 she is in custody for more than 5 years and 3 months. Accused No.5 arrested on 24.04.2018, he is in custody for more than 2 years and 8 months. Accused No.6 was arrested on 28.03.2018, he is in custody for more than 2 years and 9 months. The alleged offences are under Sections 406 and 420 of IPC. Almost the accused No.2 undergone half of punishment prescribed and accused Ns.5 and 6 are reaching half of the punishment prescribed for the alleged offences.

¶40

This Court also granted bail to the petitioners herein in similar matter in Criminal Petition No.101499/2020 on 07.01.2021 for the case registered in Crime No.151/2014 of Jagaluru Police Station, later registered in Harapanahalli Police Station in Crime

¶41

¶42

No.171/2014. Investigation of the case is already completed and charge sheet is filed. The accused No.1 already granted bail by coordinate bench of this Court in Criminal Petition No.101977/2014 on 19.12.2014 that too anticipatory bail. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioners are in judicial custody for 5 years 3 months, 2 years 8 months and 2 years 6 months respectively, as per Section 436A of Cr.P.C. they are entitled for bail. Except for trial, the presence of petitioners is no more required. Investigation of the case is completed and charge sheet has been filed. Therefore, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, by imposing certain conditions, if bail granted to the petitioners, no prejudice would cause to the case of prosecution. Accordingly, I pass the following :

¶43

ORDER

¶44

The Criminal petition is allowed. The trial Court is directed to release the petitioners/accused Nos.2, 5 and 6 on bail in Crime No.154/2014 of Koppal Town Police Station (Special C.C.(KPIDFC) No.1/2017 on the file of Principal District and Sessions Judge, Koppal) registered for the offences punishable under Sections 420 and 120(B) read with Section 9 of the Karnataka Protection of

¶45

¶46

Interest of Depositors in Financial Establishment Act, 2004, subject to the following conditions:

¶47

i. The petitioners/accused Nos.2, 5 and 6 shall execute a personal bond for a sum of `2,00,000/each (Rupees two lakhs only) with two sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the trial Court.

¶48

ii. The petitioners/accused Nos.2, 5 and 6 shall not hamper/tamper the prosecution witnesses directly or indirectly.

¶49

iii. The petitioners/accused Nos.2, 5 and 6 shall not indulge in similar offences.

¶50

iv. The petitioners/accused Nos.2, 5 and 6 shall not leave the jurisdiction of the trial court without prior permission.

¶51

v. The petitioners/accused Nos.2, 5 and 6 shall take the trial without causing any delay.

¶52

vi. The petitioners/accused Nos.2, 5 and 6 shall furnish their details of address i.e., voter ID/ Adhaar Card etc., prior to their release.

¶53

Sd/JUDGE

¶54

CKK

N. Gayathri D/O.B.K.Narashime Goweda v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

N. Gayathri D/O.B.K.Narashime Goweda 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

Satish S/O Gurunath Alias Gurappa Chalawadi Vs the State of Karnataka

Harapal Singh S/O Prem Singh Vs the State of Karnataka

D. Prabhakaran S/O. Dayalan Vs State of Karnataka

Jahangeer S/O Imamsab Mulla Vs the State of Karnataka

Ramadas Vithoba Anvekar Vs Mohan Vasanth Raikar S/O Vasant M.Raikar

Sabiya W/O Umar Farooq Aga Vs Umar Farooq @ (Zuheb) S/O Mushtaq Ahmed Aga