Allowed

Pradeep H.S. v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC22 Feb 2021CRL.P/100308/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A criminal petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for anticipatory bail in a case involving alleged cheating, forgery, and issuance of false bills by Chettinad Cement employees. The High Court granted bail subject to specific conditions regarding bond, surrender, and investigation cooperation.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners directed to execute personal bond of Rs. 1,00,000 each, surrender within 15 days, not tamper with witnesses, be in deemed custody for search, and appear daily Monday to Friday for one week

Pradeep H.S. Vs the State of Karnataka — Cheating and Forgery | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶2

DATED THIS THE 22^ND DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2021

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. NATARAJAN

¶5

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.100308 OF 2021

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

PRADEEP H.S.

¶8

AGED 35 YEARS

¶9

OCCUPATION: COMPANY EXECUTIVE

¶10

CHETTINAD CEMENT

¶11

RESIDENT OF AKSHAY DATTA COMPLEX OPP. POST OFFICE, 2^ND PHASE HUBLI.

¶12

GOMATHI NAYAGAN

¶13

AGED 58 YEARS

¶14

OCCUPTION: COMPANY EXECUTIVE

¶15

CHETTINAD CEMENT

¶16

RESIDENT OF 2^ND FLOOR, ADITYA TOWERS 23, VSN ROAD, SHIVAJINAGAR BENGALURU.

¶17

VENKATARAMANA S.B.

¶18

AGED 64 YEARS OCCUPATION: COMPANY EXECUTIVE

¶19

CHETTINAD CEMENT RESIDENT OF 2^ND FLOOR, ADITYA TOWERS 23, VSN ROAD, SHIVAJINAGAR BENGALURU.

¶20

¶21

VIJAY B.

¶22

AGED 48 YEARS, OCCUPATION: COMPANY EXECUTIVE CHETTINAD CEMENT RESIDENT OF AKSHAY DATTA COMPLEX OPP. POST OFFICE, 2^ND PHASE HUBLI.

¶23

… PETITIONERS

¶24

(BY SRI K.S. PATIL AND SRI AJAY V. PATIL, ADVs.)

¶25

AND:

¶26

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH POLICE INSPECTOR OLD HUBLI POLICE STATION HUBLI REPRESENTED BT STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR AG OFFICE, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BENCH AT DHARWAD.

¶27

…RESPONDENT

¶28

(BY MS. SEEMA SHIVA NAIK, H.C.G.P.)

¶29

¶30

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 438 OF THE CR.P.C. PRAYING FOR GRANT OF BAIL TO THE PETITIONERS IN THE EVENT OF THEIR ARREST IN CRIME NO.147 OF 2020 REGISTERED BY THE OLD HUBLI POLICE STATION FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 415, 420, 463, 468, 471, 503, 504, 506 AND 120B READ WITH SECTION 34 OF THE IPC.

¶31

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

¶32

¶33

ORDER

¶34

This petition is filed by accused Nos.2 to 5 under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (for short, ‘the Cr.P.C.’) for granting anticipatory bail in Crime No.147 of 2020 registered by the Old Hubli Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 415, 420, 463, 468, 471, 503, 504, 506 and 120B read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, ‘the IPC’).

¶35

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondentState and perused the record.

¶36

A private complaint is referred from IV Additional Civil Judge and J.M.F.C., Hubli, in P.C. No.841 of 2020. The case of the complainant is that, he is the owner of the firm Sanket Associates which does business in cement. Accused No.1 has introduced the complainant to accused No.2 on the promise of getting Chettinad Cement Corporation Private Limited dealership and cement. On 28-8-2019, they have taken four signed

¶37

¶38

cheques drawn on Karnataka Bank Limited from the

¶39

complainant. On the same day, the complainant placed purchase order for 700 metric tons of cement. For such order, accused Nos.3 and 4 have assured their help and informed the complainant to pursue transactions through accused No.1 as middle man. It is further alleged that, accused Nos.1 to 5 have not supplied cement to the complainant, but have raised false bills for having supplied 172.5 metric tons of cement and accused No.2 has called and asked for payment. On enquiry with accused No.1, he said, he has not paid amount for receipt of cement. Thereafter, accused No.2 threatened the complainant to encash the blank cheques which he is having. Hence, the Police have registered a case.

¶40

Learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that

¶41

the petitioners are innocent and they have been falsely implicated in the case. In fact, accused No.1 is the agent, who received the goods from the complainant. The amount payable by the complainant is paid to Chettinad Cement for supplying

¶42

¶43

the goods to accused No.1. He further contended that petitioners are ready to abide by any conditions to be imposed by this Court. Hence, prayed for allowing the petition.

¶44

Learned High Court Government Pleader for the

¶45

respondent-State has opposed the bail petition and contended that accused No.1 is an agent, who introduced the complainant to accused No.2-Sales Manager under the guise of dealership and obtained four blank cheques. Even the complainant placed order for supplying 700 metric tons of cement, which was not supplied, and they have shown as 172.5 metric tons of cement supplied to accused No.1, that too, by creating false bills and creating bogus vehicle number which was found to be smaller vehicle, wherein for transportation of cements, heavy goods vehicles are required. Petitioners are required for the purpose of investigation. Hence, prayed for rejecting the bail petition.

¶46

¶47

Case came to be registered on a private complaint in

¶48

P.C. No.841 of 2020 and the same was referred by the Magistrate under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. The main allegation is against accused No.1, who is said to be agent and introduced the complainant to accused No.2, who is a Sales Officer in Chettinad Cement. Other accused is also said to be working in Chettinad Cement. It is alleged that, the complainant placed order for 700 metrics ton of cement, but got supplied 172.5 metric tons of cement Having checked with the accused, they have returned the cheques. The accused have said to be demanding cash from the complainant even though not supplied goods, but created false documents for having supplied the goods. On considering that there were business transactions between the complainant and the accused, which turned to criminal case. Police requires to investigate the case. Petitioners are employees of Chettinad Cement and the sale transactions will be available by documentary evidence. Therefore, if bail is granted by imposing certain conditions, no prejudice would be caused to the case of the prosecution since

¶49

¶50

all the evidence depends upon documentary evidence. The offences are not punishable with death or imprisonment for life. Hence, the petitioners are entitled for grant of anticipatory bail. Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶51

O R D E R

¶52

Petition is allowed .

¶53

The respondent-Police is directed to release the petitioners on bail in the event of their arrest in Crime No.147 of 2020 registered by the Old Hubli Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 415, 420, 463, 468, 471, 503, 504, 506 and 120B read with Section 34 of the IPC, subject to the following conditions:

¶54

i. Petitioners shall execute a personal bond in a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- each (Rupees one lakh only) with a surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the Investigating

¶55

Officer;

¶56

¶57

ii. Petitioners shall surrender themselves before the Investigating Officer within fifteen days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order;

¶58

iii. Petitioners shall not tamper with the prosecution witnesses directly or indirectly;

¶59

iv. Petitioners shall be in deemed custody for the purpose of any recovery under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872; and

¶60

v. Petitioners shall appear before the Investigating Officer everyday between 10:00 a.m. and 12:00 noon for a period of one week and thereafter, once in a week till completion of the investigation or filing of the chargesheet, whichever is earlier.

¶61

Sd/-

¶62

JUDGE

¶63

kvk

Pradeep H.S. v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pradeep H.S. 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

Ramappa S/O Yellappa Amminbhavi Vs State of Karnataka

Arbaaz Khan Shilledar S/O. Ayub Khan Vs State of Karnataka

Shri Kallappa S/O Dundappa Latti Vs State of Karnataka

Vittal S/O. Annappa Madappagol, Vs the State of Karnataka

Channappa S/O. Veerpanna Divatar Vs the State of Karnataka

Balchandra S/O Shivaram Bhandari Vs the State of Karnataka