Allowed

Asha R Shetty v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC5 May 2021CRL.P/3690/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka allowed a criminal petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for anticipatory bail for petitioners accused of offences under Sections 468, 465, 420 and 34 of the IPC. The court characterized the background as a civil property dispute, held that this did not indicate guilt at the bail stage, and granted bail subject to strict conditions regarding appearance and non-interference

What did the court decide?

Petitioners enlarged on bail in the event of arrest subject to executing a personal bond of Rs. 1,00,000/-, appearing before the IO twice monthly for two months, and obtaining prior permission to leav

Asha R Shetty Vs State of Karnataka — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

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

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR CRIMINAL PETITION NO.3690/2021

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

ASHA R.SHETTY W/O. RATHNAKAR R.SHETTY AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS R/AT NO.6-147, D.SHIVAKRIPA OPP. AMMANNI RAMANNA SHETTY HALL UDUPI DISTRICT- 576 101

¶7

RATHNAKAR R.SHETTY S/O. LATE RAMANNA SHETTY AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS R/AT NO.6-147, D.SHIVAKRIPA OPP. AMMANNI RAMANNA SHETTY HALL UDUPI DISTRICT- 576 101

¶8

RISHIT R.SHETTY S/O. RATHNAKAR R.SHETTY AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS R/AT NO.6-147, D.SHIVAKRIPA OPP. AMMANNI RAMANNA SHETTY HALL UDUPI DISTRICT- 576 101 ...PETITIONERS

¶9

(BY SRI JAGADEESHA B.N., ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY KAPU POLICE STATION UDUPI DISTRICT REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BENGALURU- 560 001 ... RESPONDENT (BY SMT.RASHMI JADHAV, HCGP)

¶12

¶13

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 438 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO RELEASE THE PETITIONERS ON ANTICIPATORY BAIL IN THE EVENT OF THEIR ARREST IN CRIME NO.48/2021 OF KAPU POLICE STATION REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 468, 465 AND 420 READ WITH SECTION 34 OF IPC.

¶14

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

¶15

O R D E R

¶16

This petition is filed by accused Nos.1 to 3 seeking to enlarge them on bail in the event of their arrest in Crime No.48/2021 filed by Kapu Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 468, 465, 420 read with Section 34 of IPC on the file of II Additional Civil Senior Judge (Junior Division) & JMFC, Udupi.

¶17

The case of the prosecution is that the petitioners are the owners of 0.97 acres of land bearing Sy.No.53/14P1 of Bappanandu Village and they had entered into an agreement of sale on 15.03.2013 with the complainant to sell the property. In conformity with the said agreement of sale, the complainant had paid entire sale consideration and the original documents were handed over by the petitioners to the complainant with a promise to conclude the sale transaction by 2018 by getting necessary permission for alienation of the property. Despite the

¶18

¶19

complainant insisting to conclude the sale transaction by getting the boundaries fixed, the petitioners did not perform their part of contract and register the sale deed in favour of complainant.

¶20

The complainant came to know, that by forging his signature, the petitioners have prepared a document of cancellation of agreement and published a notice to that effect and thereafter alienated the property to third party. In this regard, complaint came to be registered against the petitioners in Crime No.48/2021 for the offences punishable under Sections 468, 465, 420 read with Section 34 of IPC.

¶21

The petitioners filed an application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. before the Principal District and Sessions Judge at Udupi seeking for their enlargement on bail in anticipation of their arrest. The said petition came to be dismissed on 21.04.2021.

¶22

It is contended by learned Counsel for the petitioners that admittedly there has been some transaction of sale pertaining to the extent of land as stated in the complaint by the complainant. Though the complainant has not stated as to what is the total amount of sale consideration, the petitioners herein

¶23

¶24

state that the sale consideration was agreed at Rs.80,00,000/and a sum of Rs.32,50,000/- has been transferred to the complainant by way of RTGS and the remaining amount of Rs.47,50,000/- by way of cash has been repaid to the complainant.

¶25

Learned counsel for the petitioners further contends that the allegations made in the complaint are frivolous and does not depict the correct facts. In fact, the complainant had barged into the house of petitioners and threatened with dire consequences and forced the petitioners to sign certain documents in his favour, due to which the petitioners herein had lodged the complaint on 15.03.2021 which came to be registered as NCR. Learned counsel further contends that petitioners are respectable members and citizens of the society and they are ready to abide by any conditions imposed by this Court. They have good antecedents and they have not been involved in any previous criminal cases or conviction. Petitioners further undertake that they shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement threat or hamper the investigation of the Police. They are ready to abide any conditions imposed by this Court for their enlargement on bail.

¶26

¶27

He further contends that in the event of their arrest their image will be tarnished in the society.

¶28

Per contra, learned HCGP submits that the investigation is still in progress and admittedly there has been transaction of sale between the petitioners and complainant. In the event of petitioners being enlarged on bail, there is probability of petitioners tampering the witnesses and hampering the progress of investigation being conducted by the Police. Learned HCGP also apprehends that it may be difficult to secure the petitioners as there is apprehension of the petitioners fleeing away from justice.

¶29

Having heard learned counsel for petitioners and learned HCGP and on perusal of records, it is not in dispute that there has been a transaction to purchase the property by complainant belonging to that of the petitioners way back in the year 2013. Despite the agreement having been executed in 2013, nothing transpired till 2021, with rival complaints lodged by both the parties it appears due to escalation in the market value of properties there may be certain misunderstanding between the parties which this Court does not want to dwell into merits of the matter. The only point that needs to be

¶30

¶31

considered by this Court while granting bail in anticipation of arrest is to see what is the gravity and nature of offence, whether there is any previous criminal antecedents of petitioners, whether petitioners on grant of bail would flee from justice, whether there is any difficultly in securing them and whether justice would be thwarted by grant of bail to petitioners.

¶32

In the present facts and circumstances of the case, admittedly, it is a civil dispute of property transaction between parties. Though there are allegations made by complainant with regard to forgery and fraud committed by petitioners in executing cancellation of sale deed, these are matters which have to be examined and investigated by the Police and threshed out in the trial. At this stage, it cannot be said that the petitioners are guilty of the offence. The offences alleged herein are not punishable either with imprisonment of life or for death.

¶33

Therefore, I am of the opinion that if the petitioners are enlarged on bail by imposing stringent conditions, the apprehension of prosecution would be allayed and so also that of the complainant would be safeguarded. Hence, petitioners

¶34

¶35

deserve to be enlarged on bail in the event of their arrest. Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶36

ORDER

¶37

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

¶38

allowed .

¶39

The petitioners shall be enlarged on bail in the event of their arrest in Crime No.48/2021 of Kapu Police Station, Udupi for the offences punishable under Sections 468, 465, 420 read with Section 34 of IPC subject to following conditions:

¶40

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

¶41

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

¶42

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

¶43

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

¶44

v. Petitioners shall mark their attendance before the Investigating Officer twice in a month i.e., on Sunday between 10.00 am to 5.00 p.m. for a

¶45

¶46

period of 2 months or till filing of charge sheet, whichever is earlier.

¶47

Sd/JUDGE

¶48

Asha R Shetty v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Asha R Shetty 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

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

Sri Vishwanath Vs the State of Karnataka