Allowed

Chandrashekar. v. Vs the State of Karnataka by

Karnataka HC9 Mar 2021CRL.P/1472/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal petition filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for anticipatory bail in a cheating case involving dishonoured cheques, the High Court allowed the petition. The court imposed conditions including a personal bond with a surety, surrender within 15 days, non-interference with witnesses, and bi-weekly attendance before the Investigating Officer.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner/accused No.2 released on bail in event of arrest subject to personal bond of Rs. 1 lakh, surrender in 15 days, no tampering with witnesses, attendance before I.O., and deemed custody status

Chandrashekar. v Vs the State of Karnataka by — Cheating and Forgery | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 9^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN CRIMINAL PETITION NO.1472 OF 2021

¶6

BETWEEN

¶7

CHANDRASHEKAR V AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS S/O LATE D.VENKATAPPA NO.291, 1^ST CROSS 7^TH MAIN, SRIRAMPURA BENGALURU-560 021.

¶8

... PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI M.T.NANAIAH, SR.COUNSEL FOR SRI TUMBIGI PRABHUGOUDA BASAVANTARAYAGOUDA, ADV.,) AND

¶10

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY SUBRAMANYANAGAR P.S. BENGALURU REP. BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR BENGALURU-560 001.

¶11

... RESPONDENT (BY SMT. RASHMI JADHAV, HCGP) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 438 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN THE EVENT OF HIS ARREST IN CR.NO.173/2020 REGISTERED BY SUBRAMANYANAGAR POLICE STATION, BENGALURU FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 384, 406, 420 AND 506(B) READ WITH SECTION 34 OF IPC.

¶12

¶13

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

¶14

ORDER

¶15

This petition is filed by the petitioner-accused No.2 under Section 438 of Cr.P.C., for granting anticipatory bail in Crime No.173/2020 registered by Subramanyanagar Police Station, Bengaluru for the offences punishable under Sections 384, 420, 506(B) and 406 read with Section 34 of IPC on the private complaint referred by the IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru on the complaint of Mamatha Shridhar. It is alleged that the complainant is said to have kept some money in her Bank account after selling the property. Complainant and her mother were making saree business in Srirampura, Bengaluru. Petitioner and Accused Nos.1 and 2 were known to each other. Accused No.1 is said to have real estate business and he promised to get her site in ISRO Layout and accordingly, he showed site in Kumaraswamy Layout, Prashanthinagar and introduced one person by name Anantha Krishna as the owner of the site which is situated

¶16

¶17

at ISRO Layout. The complainant agreed to purchase a site for Rs.80.00 lakhs. Accordingly, she paid the said amount to accused Nos.1 and 2 by cash as well as cheque but later it was found that the said property was not at all belong to the Anantha Krishna or accused No.1. Thereafter, she insisted the accused for re-payment of the amount and it is alleged that this petitioner is said to have given cheque for Rs.80.00 lakhs on 10.05.2019 and the same was dishonoured due to insufficient funds and later accused No.1 said to have given cheque of IDFC Bank for Rs.17.00 lakhs on 07.08.2019. The present petitioner is also said to have given a cheque of Rs.80.00 lakhs on 19.08.2019 through IDFC Bank. Thereby, the accused persons have said to be cheated the complainant by obtaining money of Rs.73,63,560/- from the complainant. The complainant filed a private complaint before the Magistrate and same was referred to the Police and in turn, the case was registered. After registering the case,

¶18

the Police made hectic efforts to arrest this petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner has approached the Sessions

¶19

¶20

Court for bail which came to be rejected. Hence, the petitioner is before this Court.

¶21

Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner is innocent of the alleged offences and he has been falsely implicated by the Police and the complainant. Accused No.1 who is the separated son of accused No.2 who has executed a relinquish deed after taking his share in the joint family and he is living separately. If any transaction is said to have been entered into by accused No.1 with other persons, the petitioner will not be held liable. The entire allegation is made against accused No.1 as he had issued a cheque. Infact, a cheque is not at all issued by this petitioner. Accused No.1 might have been issued a cheque as the account was standing in the name of this petitioner, the said account was closed long back and the legal notice has also been issued in this regard. Though the offence is non-bailable, the same is not punishable either with death or imprisonment of life. The

¶22

¶23

petitioner is ready to abide by the conditions imposed by this Court. Hence, prayed for granting bail.

¶24

Per contra learned High Court Government Pleader objected the bail petition and contended that this petitioner has also received sale consideration along with accused No.1 and he has also issued a cheque twice to the complainant which reveals in paragraph Nos.5 and 6 of the private complaint filed by the complainant. Investigation is still pending. He is required for the purpose of custodian interrogation. Accused No.1 is still absconding. Hence, prayed to reject the bail petition.

¶25

Upon hearing the arguments of learned Senior counsel and learned High Court Government Pleader which goes to show that accused No.1 is said to have introduced one Anantha Krishna as the owner of the vacant site situated at ISRO Layout and obtained sale consideration upto Rs.73.00 lakhs and later it was revealed that there is no such site belong to Anantha Krishna. Therefore, the complainant insisted the accused for repayment of the

¶26

¶27

amount, thereby, accused Nos.1 and 2 said to have given cheques which shows that the accused persons have cheated the complainant by obtaining money of Rs.73,63,560/- from the complainant. Looking to the complaint averments, it shows that the maximum amount has been transferred to accused No.1 through RTGS and NEFT. However, it is stated Rs.10.00 lakhs has been given to this petitioner by cash and Rs.5.00 lakhs to Anantha Krishna and various persons. If at all the complainant wanted to purchase the property from Anantha Krishna, then what is the reason for paying the sale consideration to various persons other than the alleged owner. The investigation is required to be done by the Investigating Officer. However, by looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner is said to be the father of accused No.1 and the allegation goes against accused No.1 who is the son of this petitioner. Though the offence is non-bailable, the same is not punishable either with death or imprisonment of life. The offence is triable by the Magistrate. Investigation is pending and the veracity of

¶28

¶29

the documents will be verified, after due investigation. Material placed on record at this stage cannot be considered that he is having cheated the complainant. By imposing certain conditions, if the anticipatory bail is granted to the petitioner, no prejudice would cause for the prosecution case. Hence, the following

¶30

ORDER

¶31

Criminal petition is allowed .

¶32

The respondent – Police are directed to release the petitioner/accused No.2 on bail in the event of his arrest in Crime No.173/2020 for the offences punishable under Sections 384, 420, 506(B) and 406 read with Section 34 of IPC, subject to the following conditions:

¶33

(i) Petitioner shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) with one surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer;

¶34

(ii) Petitioner shall surrender within 15 days from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order;

¶35

¶36

(iii) Petitioner shall not indulge in similar offences strictly;

¶37

(iv) Petitioner shall not tamper with the prosecution witnesses directly/ indirectly;

¶38

(v) Petitioner shall be deemed custody for the purpose of any recovery under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872; and

¶39

(vi) Petitioner shall mark his attendance before the Investigating Officer on every Monday between 10:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. for a period of two months or till filing of the charge-sheet, whichever is earlier.

¶40

Sd/JUDGE

¶41

GBB

Chandrashekar. v. Vs the State of Karnataka by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chandrashekar. v. Vs the State of Karnataka by

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

Vinod Bhandari Vs the State by

Sri. Mohammed Fazal Vs State of Karnataka

Ansu @ Ansur Ali Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Denakaran M Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Murugeshan Vs the State of Karnataka

Iqlak Qureshi Vs State by Tilaknagar Police Station