Dismissed

Sri B S Lokeshwar v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC8 Jul 2021CRL.P/3508/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Karnataka High Court dismissed successive anticipatory bail petitions filed by two accused persons under Section 438 CrPC. The Court held that subsequent medical grounds asserted after a rejected petition, while the accused were absconding, could not override the principle that successive anticipatory bail is not maintainable when the accused are not cooperating with investigation.

What did the court decide?

Successive anticipatory bail petitions of accused Nos.17 and 2 were dismissed; medical grounds found insufficient.

Sri B S Lokeshwar Vs State of Karnataka — Bail and Remand | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 8^TH DAY OF JULY, 2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN CRIMINAL PETITION NO.3377 OF 2021 CONNECTED WITH CRIMINAL PETITION NO.3508 OF 2021

¶6

IN CRL.P.NO.3377 OF 2021

¶7

BETWEEN SMT. ASHWINI S. D/O. SARIKA PUSHPA, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, RESIDING AT No.30, 5^TH ‘A’ MAIN, BANASHANKARI 2^ND STAGE, BENGALURU – 560 070.

¶8

... PETITIONER (BY SRI A.S. PONNANNA, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI H.C. PRATEEK, ADVOCATE) AND

¶9

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY THE ALANAHALLY POLICE, MYSURU, REPRESENTED BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU – 560 001. ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI THEJESH P., HCGP)

¶10

¶11

IN CRL.P.NO.3508 OF 2021

¶12

BETWEEN

¶13

SRI B.S. LOKESHWAR S/O. LATE P. SIDDAIAH, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, RESIDING AT HANUMANALU, BANNUR HOBLI, T. NARASIPURA TALUK, MYSURU DISTRICT – 560 007.

¶14

... PETITIONER

¶15

(BY SRI ARNAV A. BAGALWADI, ADVOCATE)

¶16

AND

¶17

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY THE ALANAHALLY POLICE, MYSURU, REPRESENTED BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU – 560 001.

¶18

... RESPONDENT

¶19

(BY SRI K. NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP)

¶20

THESE CRIMINAL PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER SECTION 438 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONERS ON BAIL IN THE EVENT OF THEIR ARREST IN CRIME NO.109/2020 OF ALANAHALLY POLICE STATION, MYSURU CITY, FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 406 AND 420 READ WITH SECTION 34 OF THE INDIAN PENAL CODE AND SECTION 9 OF THE KARNATAKA PROTECTION OF INTEREST DEPOSITORS OF FINANCIAL ESTABLISHMENT ACT.

¶21

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.3377 OF 2021 HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 24.06.2021 AND CRIMINAL PETITION NO.3508 OF 2021 HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 01.07.2021 AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT , THIS DAY, THE COURT PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

¶23

ORDER

¶24

Crl.P.No.3377/2021 is filed by the petitioner-accused No.17 and Crl.P.No.3508/2021 is filed by the petitioneraccused No.2 under Section 438 of Cr.P.C., for granting anticipatory bail in Crime No.109/2020 registered by Alanahally Police Station, Mysuru for the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘IPC’) and Section 9 of the Karnataka Protection of Interest Depositors in Financial Establishment Act 2004 (in short ‘KPID Act’).

¶25

Heard the arguments of learned senior counsel for the petitioners and learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent – State.

¶26

The case of the prosecution is that the Alanahally Police have registered a case on the complaint of one Basavaraju filed on 7.12.2020, alleging that the petitioners/accused persons, who were the Directors, Managing Directors, President of Yashaswini Housing Co-

¶27

¶28

operative Society (Petitioner – Society) have collected more than Rs.80.00 crores from the complainant and 1500 members by giving a false promise that they will provide sites to them on payment of equal installments under different schemes. Believing the assurance of the Petitioner-Society, nearly 1500 members have invested the amount in the said Society almost to the tune of Rs.80.00 crores. The amounts were collected during the year 2011 but they have not allotted any sites till date and there is no any progress after registration of the case. The Police are trying to arrest these petitioners and other accused. Hence, accused No.17 has approached this Court for granting anticipatory bail in Crl.P.No.1465/2020 and accused No.2 has approached this Court for granting anticipatory bail in Crl.P.No.1468/2021. Both the bail petitions came to be rejected by this Court on 18.03.2021. Again both the petitioners have filed a successive bail petition mainly on the medical ground that the petitioner in Crl.P.No.3377/2021 has contended that she was pregnant at the time of registering the case and she was admitted to

¶29

¶30

the hospital for her ill health. Later, she gave birth to a child and it is very difficult for her to look after the child and she requires periodical check up and medical care. Therefore, prayed for granting bail. Learned senior counsel has also produced various medical records and also with regard to delivery of the child.

¶31

Whereas, the petitioner in Cr.P.No.3508/2021 has also filed medical certificate dated 27.03.2021 stating that he is suffering from Diabetes Mellitus, Accelerated Hypertension and opinion of Cardiologist is that he is suffering from Ischemic Heart Disease, Recurrent Urinary track infection and advised not to take stressful work. He is on treatment since two months and advised not to travel long distance etc., and hence, accused No.2 prayed for granting anticipatory bail.

¶32

Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader seriously objected the bail petitions.

¶33

¶34

Upon hearing the arguments and on perusal of the records which goes to show that both the petitioners have approached this Court for anticipatory bail which came to be rejected on 18.03.2021. After a month i.e., in April 2021, both the petitioners again moved a bail petition under Section 438 of Cr.P.C., for granting anticipatory bail on medical ground and the same was objected by the learned High Court Government Pleader and has also relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of G.R.Ananda Babu vs. The State of Tamil Nadu

¶35

and Another in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.)No.213/2021 dated 28.01.2021.

¶36

Admittedly, on perusal of the records and the facts of the case on hand, these petitioners and others are the Directors, Managing Directors and President of the Yashaswini Housing Co-operative Society. They have collected more than Rs.80.00 crores from 1500 members by giving a false promise of providing sites to them on payment of equal installments under different schemes.

¶37

¶38

Though the amounts were collected in the year 2011, still they have not allotted any sites or formed any Layout. They have misused the funds and invested the funds in Foreign Banks through their children. By considering the material on merits, this Court has rejected the bail petition.

¶39

Now, the petitioner-accused No.17 has come-up with medical ground that she gave birth to a child and she was pregnant when the case was registered and therefore, she is seeking for anticipatory bail.

¶40

9. On perusal of the records, the FIR came to be

¶41

registered on 07.12.2020. The bail petition has been rejected by this Court on 18.03.2021. At that time, there was no such contention taken by the petitioner-accused No.17 that she was pregnant and not urged any medical ground. But, after dismissal of the petition, the fresh ground is urged that she gave birth to a child. Of course, the medical ground is required to be considered sympathetically, if the petitioner is in custody or in jail.

¶42

¶43

But here, from the date of registering the case, this petitioner is absconding and not available for arrest and she has managed by getting admission in the hospital at Mysuru itself and got discharged from the hospital. Such being the case, the question of considering the medical ground on the ground of delivering the child and seeking anticipatory bail after rejection of the bail petition does not arise and it cannot be said to be a changed circumstance. Hence, the bail petition of accused No.17 is required to be dismissed.

¶44

As regards the other bail petition of accused No.2, he has also produced the medical certificate obtained from the Hospital on 27.03.2021 after rejection of this bail petition on 18.03.2021. Accused No.2 is also absconding from the date of registering the case and after rejection of the bail petition, the medical ground urged by accused No.2 is not acceptable one as Diabetes Mellitus and Hyper Tension are all common diseases and even the opinion of Cardiologist who has advised to take rest for two months

¶45

¶46

and as such, there is no serious illness. It is also advised not to take stressful work. Therefore, the medical ground urged by accused No.2 is not a good ground for considering the successive anticipatory bail once the same was rejected by this Court.

¶47

Learned High Court Government Pleader has produced the copy of the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of G.R.Ananda Babu stated supra, wherein it is held that once the anticipatory bail is rejected, the successive anticipatory bail shall not be entertained as the accused is absconding and not cooperating with the investigation. The specious reason of change in circumstances cannot be invoked for the successive anticipatory bail application, once it is rejected by a speaking order and that too by the same Judge. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the High Court shall not entertain the successive anticipatory bail petition.

¶48

In view of the principle laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.)

¶49

10

¶50

No.213/2021, the successive anticipatory bail petition filed by accused Nos.17 and 2 is not maintainable and the medical grounds are also not sufficient to grant anticipatory bail. Of course, the medical ground shall have to be extended for the accused who is actually in the judicial custody and for providing him proper treatment in good hospital and the Court is required to grant an Interim bail or regular bail but not the anticipatory bail as they are outside and absconding.

¶51

Therefore, the successive bail petitions filed by accused No.17 in Crl.P.No.3377/2021 and accused No.2 in Crl.P.No.3508/2021 are hereby dismissed .

¶52

Sd/-

¶53

JUDGE

¶54

GBB

Sri B S Lokeshwar v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri B S Lokeshwar 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Chandrashekar B R Vs Central Government of India

Mahadevaprasad Vs State by Cyber Crime Police

Santhosh Kumar K. @ Santhu Vs State by Karnataka

Smt Taslim Banu Vs State of Karnataka

Pradeep Kumar R @ Pradeep Vs the Station House Officer

A P Abhijith Vs State by Basaralu Police