A successive bail petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for a cheating offence was dismissed. The court held that no changed circumstances existed to justify a second application given the petitioners were still absconding and the earlier bail was rejected on merits.
No relief; successive bail petition dismissed; anticipatory bail not granted.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2021
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.6245 OF 2021
BETWEEN
AND
THE STATE BY CHALLAKERE POLICE, CHALLAKERE, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT – 577 522, REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BENGALURU – 560 001. ... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI MAHESH SHETTY, HCGP (through physical hearing)
2
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS 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.75/2021 REGISTERED BY CHALLAKERE POLICE STATION, CHITRADURGA, FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 420 READ WITH SECTION 34 OF THE INDIAN PENAL CODE.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This successive bail petition is filed by accused Nos.2 and 3 under Section 438 of Cr.P.C., for granting anticipatory bail in Crime No.75/2021 registered by Challakere Police Station for the offence punishable under Section 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘IPC’).
3
from Tamil Nadu. He came in contact with accused Nos.1 to 3 namely Prakash, Angappan and Shanmugan. There was some money transaction between the complainant and the accused persons. Such being the case, accused Nos.1 to 3 said to have informed that old gold at Karnataka is available at a cheaper rate for Rs.25 to 30 lakh per K.G., and insisted the complainant to purchase the same. Believing their words, the complainant along with his brother-Nanda Kumar decided to purchase 4 K.G. of gold worth of Rs.1.00 crore and also arranged the said amount. Further accused Nos.1 to 3 gave a phone number of accused No.4-Shankaragowda to the complainant, who would sell the gold from Karnataka. Further, that on 5.3.2021, the complainant, his brother-Nanda Kumar and his friend-Murugan drove towards Chitradurga town and accused Nos.1 to 3 accompanied them in a separate car to Chitradurga town. The complainant and his companions stayed in a lodge. That on 6.3.2021, at about 6.00 p.m., the said accused No.4-Shankaragowda called the complainant through phone by informing him to come to
4
Challakere along with the amount. Accordingly, the complainant drove towards Challakere by car and near Challakere, accused No.4 was standing on the roadside and met the complainant and took them to one Bharani Lodge. At about 8.15 p.m, accused No.4 asked the complainant to give the amount to him so that he could bring the gold. But the complainant and his companions refused to do so. Thereafter, accused No.4 telephoned accused Nos.1 to 3 informing the same. Then accused Nos.1 to 3 told the complainant to give the money and thereafter, the complainant and his companions gave Rs.80.00 lakh to accused No.4 and accused No.4 went off by saying that he will bring the gold but thereafter accused No.4 has called the complainant through phone and informed him that the police have got information pertaining to selling of the gold hence, they should leave the lodge and come to Chitradurga Road. Thereafter, the complainant and his companions came out of the lodge and called accused No.4 and also accused Nos.1 to 3, but
5
all their phones were switched off. Therefore, complaint came to be registered.
6
the records, admittedly, the bail petition of these petitioners under Section 438 of Cr.P.C., is rejected by this Court on merits and it is categorically held that the accused persons are required for custodial interrogation for the purpose of recovery of huge amount of Rs.80.00 lakh which is required to be seized from accused Nos.1 to 3. Hence, the anticipatory bail petition was rejected. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the recent case of G.R. Ananda Babu vs. The State of Tamil Nadu and Anr. (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.213 of 2021) dated 28.01.2021 wherein it has held as the matter of fact, successive anticipatory bail applications ought not to be entertained and more so, when the case diary and the status report, clearly indicated that the accused (respondent No.2) is absconding and not cooperating with the investigation. The specious reason of change in circumstances cannot be invoked for successive anticipatory bail applications, once it is rejected by a speaking order and that too by the same Judge.
7
Sd/JUDGE
GBB
2 issues framed by the court
Whether anticipatory bail should be granted when a successive application is filed without additional grounds and after failure to cooperate with investigation.
Whether failure of petitioners to appear and cooperate constitutes a ground for denying anticipatory bail.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
G.R. Ananda Babu vs. The State of Tamil Nadu and Anr.Applied¶30
G.R. Ananda Babu vs. The State of Tamil Nadu and Anr. (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.213 of 2021) dated 28.01.2021
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Mr. Angappan S/o. Rangaswamy
Mr. Shanmugan N. S/o. Nanjappan
The State
K. Natarajan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court