Allowed

Sri S K Sunil Kumar v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC5 May 2021CRL.P/3564/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court granted anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. to a jewellery shop proprietor apprehended of receiving stolen gold ornaments. The Court held that imposing stringent conditions could allay apprehensions of absconding and ruled the petitioner deserving of bail for the offence punishable under Section 380 IPC.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner to be enlarged on bail in event of arrest subject to executing personal bond, appearing regularly, and not leaving jurisdiction or tampering with witnesses.

Sri S K Sunil Kumar Vs the State of Karnataka — Cheating and Forgery | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 05^TH DAY OF MAY, 2021 BEFORE

¶3

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR

¶4

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.3564 OF 2021

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

SRI S.K.SUNIL KUMAR S/O.SRI S.B.KRISHNACHAR AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS PROPRIETOR M/S.SHREE MARUTHI PRASAD JEWELLERS R.T.ROAD, SIRA TOWN, SIRA TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572 137 ... PETITIONER

¶7

(BY SRI SUBRAMANYA S. UPASANA, ADVOCATE)

¶8

AND:

¶9

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY SIRA TOWN POLICE STATION SIRA TOWN, SIRA SUB-DIVISION TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572 137 ... RESPONDENT

¶10

(BY SMT.RASHMI JADHAV, HCGP)

¶11

¶12

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 438 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO DIRECT THE OFFICER IN CHARGE OF THE RESPONDENT POLICE THAT IN CASE PETITIONER IS ARRESTED IN CONNECTION WITH THE OFFENCES DETAINED IN CRIME NO.84/2021 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (SENIOR DIVISION) AND CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, SIRA, HE MAY BE RELEASED ON BAIL ON CONDITIONS THAT THIS HON’BLE COURT MAY DEEM FIT, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶13

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

¶14

¶15

ORDER

¶16

This petition is filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. seeking to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest in Crime No.84/2021 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge, (Senior Division) & CJM, Sira.

¶17

It is the case of petitioner that he is the Proprietor of M/s.Shree Maruthi Prasad Jewellers, Sira and he has been running the jewellery shop for past 15 years. On 21.03.2021, the respondent-Police proceeded with Smt.Kamalamma contending that she told that she has sold gold ornaments stolen from the house of one Sri Ranganatha of Gollarahatti Village, Gulagerahalli, Kasaba Hobli, Sira Taluk. Petitioner categorically denied receiving or purchasing any gold ornaments from the said Kamalamma and explained the nature of transaction between them and voluntarily requested the jurisdictional police to check CC TV footages of the relevant period to verify the falsity in the claim of Smt.Kamalamma as to the allegations of sale of stolen ornaments to the petitioner herein.

¶18

On the basis of the statement made by Kamalamma, respondent-Police after visiting the shop of

¶19

¶20

petitioner, have collected CCTV footage and have been calling him to the Police Station on the regular basis in the guise of investigation. It is the case of petitioner that the Police have been threatening to arrest the petitioner and demanded to return the gold ornaments purchased from Smt.Kamalamma. When the petitioner refused to accept the said allegations, the Police have started harassing the petitioner. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner gave representation to the higher authorities, despite the said representation, the petitioner was being harassed. Therefore, the petitioner left with no alternative, approached the learned Sessions Judge for grant of bail in anticipation in Crime No.84/2021 by filing Crl.Misc.Pet.No.423/2021 which came to be dismissed on 19.04.2021. Hence, the petitioner is before this Court seeking to allow his petition and for grant of bail in anticipation of his arrest.

¶21

It is the contention of learned counsel for petitioner that petitioner is innocent and has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. He further contends that the petitioner has been running gold jewellery shop from past 15 years. It is further contended that there is no FIR registered against the petitioner. The incident is alleged to have occurred

¶22

¶23

on 18.01.2021. The accused Kamalamma was brought to the shop on 21.03.2021 and complaint has been registered on 30.03.2021. Learned counsel has taken a plea that as per the Standard Operating Procedure, the Investigating Officer ought to have investigated the petitioner pursuant to the filing of complaint which is in violation of procedure followed by the Police. Petitioner further contends that no notice has been issued to petitioner. Learned counsel further contends that in view of there being no FIR registered against the petitioner, the Police are deliberately calling the petitioner to the Police Station and harassing and have now threatened to apprehend and arrest the petitioner.

¶24

It is merely on the basis of CCTV footage, the prosecution is now trying to implicate the petitioner for the offence which is not committed by the petitioner. Learned counsel contended that petitioner is a law abiding citizen and will cooperate with the investigation and is willing to abide by any of the conditions imposed by this Court. Learned counsel further contends that petitioner is a permanent resident of Tumakuru and he will not abscond from the jurisdiction of the Court and neither he will tamper the evidence nor of the witnesses of the prosecution.

¶25

¶26

On the notice being accepted by learned High Court Government Pleader, she was directed to appraise this Court as to whether there is any criminal antecedents of the petitioner or involved in similar offences of keeping or purchasing the stolen articles. Learned High Court Government Pleader fairly submits that there are no such antecedents and no such cases against the petitioner herein except present two cases. However, the learned High Court Government Pleader supports the order passed by the Sessions Judge and contends that it is on the basis of the voluntary statement made by accused Kamalamma, spot mahazar, seizure mahazar and CCTV footage, it is prima facie apparent that the petitioner has dishonestly received the stolen property pertaining to 7-8 cases. Having had the knowledge of stolen property, petitioner has committed the offence under Sections 411, 412 and 413 of IPC. Hence, she seeks to reject the bail petition sought for by the petitioner.

¶27

Having heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned High Court Government Pleader, the point that is to be considered for grant of bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is to see what is the nature and gravity of offence; whether there is any criminal antecedent of petitioner with regard to any previous

¶28

¶29

such cases and conviction, if any; whether there is any apprehension of petitioner fleeing away from justice and thwarting bail if granted by this Court.

¶30

Having perused the material on record, it is seen that petitioner is only a shop owner running jewellery shop from past 15 years and it is the allegation that he has received the stolen property from accused Kamalamma. The offence initiated under Section 380 of IPC is against the accused Kamalamma. The apprehension of the petitioner is that even if the prosecution invokes the offence against him, it would be for the provisions under Section 411 of IPC. The said offence is punishable with imprisonment for three years. The alleged offence is not punishable with imprisonment for life or death.

¶31

The apprehension of learned High Court Government Pleader that the petitioner may abscond, flee from justice and tamper with the evidence could be allayed by imposing stringent conditions while granting bail by this Court. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the petitioner deserves to be granted bail by imposing certain stringent conditions. Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶32

¶33

ORDER

¶34

The Criminal Petition filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C is

¶35

allowed .

¶36

The petitioner shall be enlarged on bail in the event of his arrest in Crime No.84/2021 of Sira Police Station, Tumkur for the offence punishable under Section 380 of IPC subject to following conditions:

¶37

i. Petitioner shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with one solvent surety (without insisting on the solvency certificate) to the satisfaction of Investigating Officer.

¶38

ii. Petitioner shall not threaten or tamper with the prosecution witnesses either directly or indirectly.

¶39

iii. Petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when called for and co-operate with the investigation.

¶40

iv. Petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of this Court without prior permission of the Court.

¶41

v. Petitioner shall mark his attendance before the Investigating Officer twice in a month i.e., on Sunday between 10.00 am to 5.00 p.m. for a period of 2 months or till filing of charge sheet, whichever is earlier.

¶42

¶43

vi. Petitioner shall not leave jurisdiction of the State without prior permission of the trial court.

¶44

Sd/JUDGE

¶45

Sri S K Sunil Kumar v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri S K Sunil Kumar 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

Sri M Sudhakar Vs the Reserve Bank of India

Mr.Surendra Kular Vs Smt Parvathi

Smt Sahanashree K S Vs Kaveri Grameena Bank

Sri. Arjun Mewara Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Vishwanath Vs the State of Karnataka

Asha R Shetty Vs State of Karnataka