Allowed

S D Somashekar v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC19 May 2021CRL.P/2980/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Karnataka High Court granted anticipatory bail to three petitioners in a fraud case involving forged documents and LIC Housing Finance collusion. Bail is conditional on appearing for custodial investigation by 6 PM on 25.05.2021 and executing a personal bond.

What did the court decide?

Bail allowed on executing a bond of Rs. 1,00,000/- each with one surety; accused directed to appear for investigation on 25.05.2021.

S D Somashekar Vs State of Karnataka — Cheque Dishonour | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19^TH DAY OF MAY, 2021

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA

¶5

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.2980/2021

¶6

BETWEEN :

¶7

S.D.SOMASHEKAR S/O. DEVENDRA AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.90, SMIG 6 B NEAR VIVEKANANDA PARK YELAHANKA NEW TOWN BANGALORE - 560 064.

¶8

RAGHU R. S/O. P.RAJU AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.417/22/2 7^TH CROSS, LAKSHMI NARAYANAPURA BANGALORE - 560 021.

¶9

DURGA PRATHAP S/O. A.KRISHNA MOHAN RAO AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.332, GROUND FLOOR 4^TH CROSS, BHADRAPPA LAYOUT MARUTHI NAGAR, NAGASHETTYHALLI BANGALORE - 560 094.

¶10

… PETITIONERS

¶11

¶12

(BY SRI B.ANAND, ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND :

¶14

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY SHO, THALAGHATTAPURA POLICE BANGALORE CITY REPTD. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDING BANGALORE - 560 001

¶15

… RESPONDENT

¶16

(BY SRI R.D.RENUKARADHYA, HCGP)

¶17

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 438 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN THE EVENT OF THEIR ARREST IN CR.NO.24/2019 OF THALAGHATTAPURA POLICE STATION, BENGALURU FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 120(B), 406, 418, 419, 420, 468, 471 READ WITH SECTION 149 OF IPC.

¶18

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-

¶19

ORDER

¶20

Accused Nos.12, 11 and 16 are the petitioners before this Court seeking grant of anticipatory bail. Based on the complaint lodged by Sri P.Vasudeva Bhat, respondent-police have registered a case in Crime

¶21

¶22

No.24/2019 on 12/02/2019. The matter is being investigated. In the complaint, it is contended that on 19.08.2013, the complainant purchased a vacant residential property bearing Khata No.721/15/2/40, 41, 43, 44 Katha No.1775 earlier being the site No.40,41,42,43 and 44 and Old Katha No. 206 & 207 formed in converted Sy.No.15/2. After execution of the sale deed, katha was also issued by the Bengaluru Bruhat Mahanagara Palike in favour of the complainant. He also got plan sanctioned in his name and complainant commenced construction of the residential building. Complainant being NRI did not sell any of the flats which he constructed on the above said plot. After return to India, he noticed that a Board was there on the property stating that 'Property belongs to LIC Housing Finance Limited'. On enquiry, he came to know that unknown people have obtained loan from LIC office, colluded with the officials of LIC and they created forged documents in respect of 10 flats out of 28 flats.

¶23

¶24

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are innocent and they have no nexus to the alleged incident and prays for granting of anticipatory bail.

¶25

Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader opposes the grant of bail stating that these accused/petitioners are absconding from the date of the incident and therefore, they are not law abiding citizens and because of their absconding, investigation has crippled and thus, sought for rejection of the bail.

¶26

In reply, learned counsel for the petitioners further contended that few of the accused persons have already been granted anticipatory bail and therefore, on the ground of parity, they may also be enlarged on bail.

¶27

Having heard the arguments and perused the records, it is seen that the entire case depends primarily on documentary evidence.

¶28

¶29

Investigating Agency may require custody of the petitioners for the purpose of custodial investigation having regard to the nature of allegations. However, the right of the petitioners cannot also be lost sight of, while considering the objections of the prosecution. Accordingly, a nice balance need to be struck between the Two.

¶30

If the petitioners/accused are directed to join investigation and the custodial investigation completed on a time slot between 9.00 p.m. and 6.00 p.m. on a particular day, such balance could be struck. Further, this Court at this stage cannot hold a mini trial to find out merits or demerits of the case.

¶31

Accordingly, without discussing much on the merits of the matter, the following order is passed

¶32

ORDER

¶33

Bail petition is allowed.

¶34

Accused/petitioners are directed to join investigation by appearing before the Investigating Officer on

¶35

¶36

25.05.2021 at about 9.00 a.m. Thereafter they have to be taken to custody and custodial investigation be completed on the same day before 6.00 p.m.

¶37

Thereafter, the accused/petitioners are to be enlarged on bail on executing a bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- each with one surety for the likesum.

¶38

The accused/petitioners are directed to cooperate with the investigation. They shall not hamper with the investigation process or not tamper with the prosecution evidence. They shall mark their attendance before the Investigating Officer/Trial Court as and when directed.

Ordered accordingly.

Sd/-

JUDGE

S D Somashekar v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S D Somashekar v. 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

Danagond S/O Ogeppa Ittangihal Vs the State of Karnataka R/by Special Pp

Parshuram and Ors. Vs the State of Karnataka

Kamalappa and Ors. Vs the State of Karnataka

S Suman Vs the State of Karnataka

Dilsad Sayed Vs State of Karnataka

Salman Khan N L Vs State by