Allowed

Sri Vishwanath v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC5 May 2021CRL.P/3615/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Karnataka allowed a criminal bail petition filed under Section 438 CrPC by two accused persons facing charges of cheating (IPC 420/34) arising from a property dispute. The Court imposed stringent conditions to prevent absconding and tampering with evidence.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners enlarged on bail with conditional bond of Rs. 1,00,000 each and strict conditions including police attendance and non-tampering.

Sri Vishwanath Vs the State of Karnataka — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF MAY, 2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION No.3615/2021

¶7

Between:

¶8

Sri. Vishwanath, S/o. Sannaswamy, Aged about 34 years.

¶9

Smt. Shivamma, W/o.Sannaswamy, Aged about 58 years, Both are residing at No.149, 3^rd Cross, 19^th Main Road, 2^nd Stage, Vijayanagara, Mysuru – 570 017.

¶10

…Petitioners (By Sri.Chandrashekara.K.A., Advocate)

¶11

And:

¶12

The State of Karnataka, By the police of Vijayanagara Police Station, Mysuru – 570 017.

¶13

Represented by SPP High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru – 560 001 …Respondent (By Smt.Rashmi Jadhav, HCGP)

¶14

¶15

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. praying to enlarge the petitioners on bail in the event of their arrest in Cr.No.30/2021 registered by Vijayanagar Police Station, Mysuru for the offence punishable under Section 420 read with 34 of IPC.

¶16

This Criminal Petition coming on for Orders this day, the Court made the following:

¶17

O R D E R

¶18

This petition is filed under section 438 of

¶19

Cr.P.C by the petitioner Nos.1 and 2 who are accused Nos.1 and 2 seeking for grant of bail in the event of their arrest in Cr.No.30/2021 of Vijayanagara Police Station, Mysuru City, now pending on the file of V Additional JMFC Court, Mysuru City for the offence punishable under section 420 read with Section 34 of IPC.

¶20

It is the case of the prosecution that on 17.02.2021 on the information of one Ananda Son of Shivalingasetty a case in Crime No.30/2021 came to be registered for the offence punishable under Section

¶21

¶22

420 read with Section 34 of IPC against the petitioners herein.

¶23

It is the case of the prosecution that on 19.04.2018, the petitioners had executed a sale deed in favour of the complainant and his wife for total consideration of Rs.19,10,000/- in respect of site No.149, measuring 25 x 25 feet, situated at II Stage, 19^th Main road, 3^rd Cross, Vijayanagara, Mysuru. On 09.09.2018 the complainant/informant said to have lost documents relating to the said Sale Deed and the same was reported to the police. The complainant came to know on 29.08.2019 that the petitioner No.1 had availed loan of Rs.15,00,000/- by mortgaging the very same property which was sold to the complainant by colluding with the Bank Manager, Secretary and Directors and thereby he has committed the offence under Section 420 read with Section 34 of IPC.

¶24

¶25

The petitioners had filed a petition in Crl.Mis.No.715/2021 before the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mysuru, seeking for grant of bail in anticipation of their arrest. By the order dated 19.04.2021 the said petition came to be rejected by the Sessions Judge. Hence, the petitioners are before this Court seeking to enlarge them on bail in the event of their arrest.

¶26

It is contended by the petitioners that they are innocent and they have not committed any offence and they have been falsely implicated in this case. They further contend that the offence alleged is not exclusively punishable with death or imprisonment for life. The said offence is exclusively triable by the learned Magistrate.

¶27

The learned counsel for the petitioners further contends that the petitioner No.2 is an aged

¶28

¶29

woman and suffering from ailments and that she would not abscond from the jurisdiction of this Court. It is further contended that the petitioners are permanent residents of Mysuru and they undertake to abide by the conditions imposed by this Court and they will not abscond from the jurisdiction of Mysuru City and they shall co-operate in the investigation of the case.

¶30

I have heard Sri.Chandrashekara.K.A., learned counsel for the petitioners and Smt.Rashmi Jadhav, learned HCGP appearing for the State.

¶31

It is seen from the records that admittedly the dispute is pertaining to a piece of land measuring 25 x 25 feet, which was sold by the petitioners in favour of the complainant and his wife. It is the case of the complainant that after the registration of Sale Deed, the petitioners have deliberately mortgaged the said original documents and obtained loan of

¶32

¶33

Rs.15,00,000/- in collusion with the Bank Manager and the staff of the Bank. Whereas on the contrary, it is the case of the petitioners that there was no sale deed as such, it was only a ‘Saalapatra’ [Deed for Hand Loan]. It is also seen that the original suit has also been filed admittedly by the petitioners against the complainant for cancellation of the Sale Deed dated 19.04.2018.

¶34

It is not in dispute that the matter pertains to a civil dispute between the parties over purchase of piece of land stated above. There is already a civil dispute which is initiated by the petitioners against the complainant. Under these circumstances, in order to entertain the petition for grant of bail in anticipation of their arrest, factors that need to be considered in an application for bail are whether there is any reasonable ground to believe that the accused had committed the offence, the nature and gravity of the

¶35

¶36

offence, antecedents of the applicant with regard to previous conviction or similar offence and whether there is any possibility of the petitioners fleeing from justice.

¶37

In the case on hand, there may not be requirement of custodial interrogation as the matter pertains to a civil dispute and the subject matter being the registered Sale Deed.

¶38

Under the circumstances, the apprehension of the learned Government Pleader is that the petitioners would abscond from the jurisdiction of the Court. The petitioners would tamper with the material witnesses and documents and they would flee from justice. These apprehensions of the learned Government Pleader are valid but the same can be answered by imposing stringent conditions for grant of bail.

¶39

¶40

The offences alleged are not punishable either with imprisonment of life or death.

¶41

Therefore, I am of the opinion that the petitioners could be enlarged on bail by imposing stringent conditions so that they do not abscond or tamper with the evidence or with the prosecution witness and at the same time they have to co-operate with the investigation. Accordingly I pass the following:

¶42

ORDER

¶43

The Criminal Petition filed under Section 438 of

¶44

Cr.P.C is allowed .

¶45

The petitioner Nos.1 and 2 shall be enlarged on bail in the event of their arrest in Crime No.30/2021 of Vijayanagara Police Station, Mysuru City, subject to following conditions:

¶46

i. Petitioners shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- each with one

¶47

¶48

solvent surety (without insisting on the solvency certificate) to the satisfaction of Investigating Officer.

¶49

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

¶50

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

¶51

iv. Petitioners shall mark their attendance before the jurisdictional police, twice a month i.e., on Sunday between 10.00 am to 5.00 p.m. for a period of 2 months or till the charge sheet is filed whichever is earlier.

¶52

v. Petitioners shall not leave jurisdiction of the State without the permission of the court.

¶53

Sd/-

¶54

JUDGE

¶55

NS/AKV

Sri Vishwanath v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Vishwanath 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 S K Sunil Kumar Vs the State of Karnataka

Asha R Shetty Vs State of Karnataka