Allowed

H N Kanthraju v. Sri H N Dinakara Prasad

Karnataka HC19 May 2021CRL.P/2586/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka entertained a criminal petition filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C by two accused persons facing charges under various sections of the IPC. The court granted anticipatory bail, observing that the apprehension of arrest was reasonable given the allegations and the pendency of related proceedings under the NI Act.

What did the court decide?

The petitioners were granted anticipatory bail directing the police to enlarge them on bail for a sum of Rs.2 lakhs each with one surety each.

H N Kanthraju Vs Sri H N Dinakara Prasad — Cheque Dishonour | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

DATED THIS THE 19^TH DAY OF MAY 2021

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B. M. SHYAM PRASAD

¶5

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 2586/2021

¶6

BETWEEN :

¶7

H N KANTHRAJU SON OF LATE NINGAPPA 54 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST.

¶8

H B RAKESH KUMAR S/O H N BASAVALINGAPPA AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS

¶9

BOTH ARE R/AT HUNASAGHATTA VILALGE AMRUTHAPURA HOBLI, TARIKERE TALUK

¶10

CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT – 577 547.

¶11

...PETITIONERS

¶12

(BY SRI. H B RUDRESH., ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND

¶14

SRI H. N. DINAKARA PRASAD S/O H S MALLAPPA AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST

¶15

R/AT HUNASAGHATTA VILALGE

¶16

AMRUTHAPURA HOBLI TARIKERE TALUK

¶17

CHIKKAMAGALRU DISTRICT – 577 547.

¶18

¶19

STATE BY AJJAMPURA POLICE REP : BY IT PUBLIC PROSECUTOR CHIKKAMANGALURU – 577 547.

¶20

... RESPONDENTS

¶21

(By SMT. NAMITHA MAHESH., HCGP)

¶22

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 438 OF CR.PC PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN THE EVENT THEIR ARREST IN CR. NO. 209/2018 (C.C. NO. 36/2020) OF AJJAMPURA P.S., CHIKKAMAGALURU FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 465, 468, 417, 419, 420, 120B OF IPC.

¶23

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

¶24

O R D E R

¶25

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned High Court Government Pleader for the second respondent, and also perused the records.

¶26

This petition is filed by Accused Nos.1 and 2 in Crime No.209/2018 registered with Ajjampura Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 465, 468, 417, 419, 420, 120B of IPC under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioners’ application

¶27

¶28

under similar provisions before the Principal District & Sessions Judge, Chikkamagaluru in Criminal Misc. Petition No.161/2021 is rejected by order dated 17.03.2021.

¶29

The prosecution’s case against the petitioners is that FIR is registered on a reference by the learned Civil Judge and Additional JMFC, Tarikere for offences punishable under section 415, 416, 418 and 419 of IPC. The allegation against the petitioners is that in the year 2012, the first petitioner had borrowed a sum of Rs.1,15,000/- from the complainant and had issued cheque dated 13.06.2012 for repayment of the said amount. The cheque issued by the first petitioner is returned for insufficiency of funds and also because the signature does not tally. Therefore, the complainant has commenced proceedings under section 138 of the NI Act, which is pending consideration in CC No. 527 of 2012. The first petitioner, at the instance of the second

¶30

¶31

petitioner, has signed and issued the Cheque dated 13.06.2012 representing that he is issuing his cheque but such cheque is issued by the Banker as against the account maintained by the second petitioner. The petitioners’ application for grant of anticipatory bail is rejected by the learned Sessions Judge opining that the petitioners are not entitled for anticipatory bail because the first petitioner has affixed his signature on the cheque issued on the second petitioner’s account.

¶32

The learned counsel for the petitioners submits

¶33

that the complainant has filed a private complainant on 16.7.2018 when the proceeding in CC No. 527 of 2012 was pending consideration. The proceeding in CC No. 527 of 2012 has culminated in favour of the first petitioner by the Judgment dated 30.08.2018. The transaction, even according to the complainant, relates to the year 2012, and the true intent in presenting the private complaint is borne out by the fact that such complaint is presented during the

¶34

¶35

pendency of the proceeding under the NI Act in CC No. 527 of 2012. These circumstances should be considered. There is threat of arrest and detention of the petitioners only to humiliate them though the offences alleged against the petitioners are bailable. In consideration of these submissions, and on perusal of the records, including the Judgment dated 30.08.2018, this Court is of the considered opinion that the apprehension of arrest is reasonable and the petitioners are entitled for protection from arrest by way of an anticipatory bail. As such, the following:

¶36

ORDER

¶37

The petition is allowed and the petitioners are granted anticipatory bail directing the respondent – police to enlarge the petitioners on bail in case he is arrested in Cr.No.209/2018 of Ajjampura Police Station and on they executing their personal bail bond for a sum of Rs.2 lakhs each with one surety each, for the like sum to the

¶38

¶39

satisfaction of the IO/Concerned Court subject to following conditions:

¶40

The petitioners shall appear before

¶41

the IO and co-operate with the IO in investigation, and that they shall also appear before the Court regularly on all the dates of hearing and co-operate for early disposal.

¶42

The petitioners shall not leave or change the abode without prior permission.

¶43

The petitioners shall not threaten or entice the informant or prosecution witnesses.

¶44

The petitioners shall mark their attendance with the Ajjampura Police

¶45

¶46

Station on 5^th of every month till final report is submitted.

¶47

The petitioners shall not leave Karnataka without the permission of the Court.

¶48

SD/JUDGE

¶49

AN/-

H N Kanthraju v. Sri H N Dinakara Prasad

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

H N Kanthraju v. Sri H N Dinakara Prasad

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

Smt Jayamma Vs the Spl. Land Acquisition Officer

Rafeeque Pasha Vs C M Jagadeesh

Mukthiyar Pasha Vs C M Jagadeesh

Prashanth S Vs State of Karnataka

Sri H K Sumair Vs the Authorized Officer

Irfan Ahmed Vs State of Karnataka