Allowed

Sachin Rathod v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC15 Mar 2021CRL.P/802/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka granted anticipatory bail to accused No.3 under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in a cheating case (Sections 406/420 IPC), imposing conditions including personal bond, surrender, and non-tampering with witnesses.

What did the court decide?

Release on bail subject to personal bond of Rs.1,00,000/- with two sureties, surrender within 15 days, and compliance with specified conditions during investigation.

Sachin Rathod Vs the State of Karnataka — Cheating and Forgery | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 15^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2021 BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. NATARAJAN CRIMINAL PETITION NO.802 OF 2021

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

SACHIN RATHOD S/O. SHIVA RATHOD, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, OCC: PRIVATE SERVICE, RESIDENT OF PLOT NO.148, BANJARA LAYOUT, SHAHABAD ROAD, KALABURAGI TALUK AND DISTRICT-585 106.

¶7

... PETITIONER

¶8

(BY SRI ARUNKUMAR AMARGUNDAPPA, ADV.)

¶9

AND:

¶10

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH SHO, KADUGODI POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS S.P.P., HIGH COURT PRINCIPAL BENCH, BENGALURU-560 001.

¶11

... RESPONDENT

¶12

(BY SMT. RASHMI JADHAV, H.C.G.P.)

¶13

¶14

¶15

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 438 OF THE CR.P.C. PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN THE EVENT OF HIS ARREST IN CRIME NO.266 OF 2020 OF KADUGODI POLICE STATION, BENGALURU, FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 406 AND 420 OF THE IPC.

¶16

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

¶17

O R D E R

¶18

This petition is filed by accused No.3 under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (for short, ‘the Cr.P.C.’) for granting anticipatory bail in Crime No.266 of 2020 registered by Kadugodi Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, ‘the IPC’).

¶19

Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State.

¶20

The case of the prosecution is that on the complaint of one Chethan B.B., the Police registered a case. It is alleged that the complainant was called for interview in the Company run by accused No.2-Rajesh

¶21

¶22

Kunar Nehar, Managing Director, in the name of Inpetro Technologies Inc. Company, Bengaluru. He has been interviewed by the petitioner on 18-9-2020 and has been submitted all the documents and given appointment. Accused No.2 contacted the complainant through phone and asked him to deposit Rs.1,50,000/- to the account standing in the name of Sunitha Singh. The complainant deposited Rs.14,500/- and Rs.97,500/- to Sunitha Singh. Thereafter, the complainant was posted for training and paid Rs.17,250/- and thereafter, he has not received any salary and to enquire about his salary, he called the telephone number of the Company, but the same was out of service. Then, he tried to contact accused No.2 and even, his phone was switched off. Thereafter, he visited the Company address, but the same was closed and nobody was there to answer. He called accused No.3, but he has not received the call. Later, he came to know that the accused persons have cheated nearly 70 to 80 persons under the guise of providing job. After registering the

¶23

¶24

complaint, the Police are making hectic efforts to arrest the petitioner. The petitioner approached the Sessions Court for granting bail, which came to be rejected. Hence, this petition.

¶25

Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner is innocent of the alleged offences and he has been falsely implicated. The petitioner is also one of the H.R. employees, who has been appointed two months prior to the alleged incident. Even he has joined the Company on salary basis and is not aware of the offences committed by accused Nos.1 and 2. Even, salary of the petitioner is not paid. He is ready to abide by any of the conditions to be imposed by the Court. Hence, he prayed for allowing the petition.

¶26

Per contra , the learned High Court Government Pleader has objected the bail petition and contended that the petitioner and accused No.2 received amount from the complainant and others. He is also required for

¶27

¶28

investigation. Hence, she prayed for rejecting the bail petition.

¶29

Upon hearing the arguments and perusal of the record, admittedly, the petitioner is said to be working as H.R. Manager in Inpetro Technologies Inc Company. The petitioner being H.R. Manager conducted viva voce of the complainant. The main allegation goes against accused No.2. The allegation against the petitioner is that he conducted interview of the candidates by giving appointment. Investigation is still under progress. Whether the petitioner has joined hands with accused Nos.1 and 2 in committing the alleged offences is a matter of investigation. Accused Nos.4 and 12 have been arrested and have given statements before the Police that the amount has been transferred to complainant’s account, but no material is placed before the Court.

¶30

Though the offences are non-bailable, but they are not punishable either with death or imprisonment for life. If

¶31

¶32

the petitioner is granted bail by imposing certain conditions, no prejudice would cause to the case of the prosecution. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following

¶33

O R D E R

¶34

Criminal petition is allowed . The respondentKadugodi Police Station is directed to release the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest in Crime No.266 of 2020 for the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 of the IPC, subject to the following conditions:

¶35

i. Petitioner shall execute a personal bond in a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) with two sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer;

¶36

ii. Petitioner shall surrender himself before the Investigating Officer within fifteen days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order;

¶37

¶38

iii. Petitioner shall not tamper with the prosecution witnesses directly or indirectly;

¶39

iv. Petitioner shall be deemed to be in custody for the purpose of any recovery under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872;

¶40

v. Petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when called for, for the purpose of investigation; and

¶41

vi. Petitioner shall mark his attendance before the Investigating Officer on every Saturday between 10:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. for a period of three months or till filing of the charge-sheet, whichever is earlier.

¶42

Sd/JUDGE

¶43

kvk

Sachin Rathod v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sachin Rathod 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

Meenakshi Vs State of Karnataka

S M Manjunath Vs State by Mandi P S

Ivan Kambonge Vs State of Karnataka

Sitharam Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Raju C C Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. H. Puttahanumaiah @ Praveen Vs State of Karnataka