Allowed

Sridhar S v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC7 Apr 2022CRL.P/2072/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka granted bail to the petitioner in a fraud case involving unregulated deposit schemes. The petitioner, while in custody, undertook to refund the collected amounts to victims within four months. The court allowed bail conditioned on the fulfillment of this refund undertaking and payment of a personal bond.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on bail subject to executing personal bond of Rs.2,00,000/- with two sureties, appearing in future hearings, and refunding the collected amount within four months.

Sridhar S Vs State of Karnataka — Corruption | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2022

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH

¶5

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.2072/2022

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRIDHAR S, S/O SATHYNARAYANA, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/AT NO.43, 3^RD CROSS, ACHARYA COLLEGE ROAD, BOGESHAPPA LAYOUT, CHIKKABANAVARA, HESARGHATTA MAIN ROAD, BENGALURU 560090. ...PETITIONER

¶8

(BY SRI PRASANNA D.P., ADVOCATE)

¶9

AND:

¶10

STATE OF KARNATAKA, KONANAKUNTE POLICE STATION, BENGALURU 560062. REPRESENTED BY SPP, HIGH COURT COMPLEX, BANGALORE 560001. ...RESPONDENT

¶11

(BY SMT. RASHMI JADHAV, HCGP)

¶12

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CR.NO.246/2021 OF KONANAKUNTE P.S., BENGALURU CITY FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS AND 9 OF THE KARNATAKA PROTECTION OF INTEREST DEPOSITORS IN FINANCIAL ESTABLISHMENT ACT 2004 AND UNDER SECTION 21 OF THE BANNING OF UNREGULATED DEPOSIT SCHEMES ACT 2019 AND UNDER SECTIONS 420, 506 READ WITH 34 OF IPC ON THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE BENGALURU IN SPL.C.C.NO.106/2022.

¶13

¶14

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

¶15

O R D E R

¶16

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the

¶17

learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State.

¶18

This is a successive bail petition filed by the

¶19

petitioner before this Court. The petitioner had earlier filed Crl.P.No.10182/2021 during the crime stage and the same was rejected by this Court on the ground that the petitioner had collected an amount of Rs.29,18,500/- i.e., an amount of Rs.6,500/- each from 449 members and instead of disbursing the loan in their favour, the very same amount was invested on the land. This Court also rejected the bail petition on the ground that the presence of the petitioner is required for investigation and not a fit case to exercise the discretion in favour of the petitioner during the crime stage. Now, the charge-sheet is filed.

¶20

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

¶21

the petitioner is in custody from 11.11.2021 and he is unable to make the payment as he is in custody. If he is enlarged on bail,

¶22

¶23

he is going to refund the amount to 449 members within four months since he has invested the amount on the land. Having considered the complaint averments, it is clear that an amount of Rs.6,500/- is collected with an assurance that they are going

¶24

to provide loan to them and the amount was collected in 2018 and no loan was given to them and hence the allegation of fraud is alleged against the petitioner.

¶25

The learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State would submit that one more case is registered against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC and the petitioner had availed the loan of Rs.57,00,000/- from the complainant and the same was not paid.

¶26

Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State and also on perusal of the material on record, no doubt, the charge-sheet is filed and the allegation made against the petitioner is committed fraud on the members who gave Rs.6,500/- each and though assurance was given that

¶27

they are going to provide loan and amount was collected and the petitioner is also not disputing the collecting of Rs.6,500/- from

¶28

¶29

449 members, who became the members in the said Trust. When such being the case, when the petitioner undertakes to refund the amount within four months, it is appropriate to enlarge him on bail taking note of the gravity of the offence and the fraud is against the general public those who have become members when assurance was given to provide loan. The petitioner is granted bail subject to returning the amount within four months. If the petitioner fails to pay the amount within the time stipulated, the State is having liberty to approach this Court for cancellation of bail.

¶30

In view of the discussions made above, I pass the

¶31

following:

¶32

ORDER

¶33

The petition is allowed. Consequently, the petitioner shall be released on bail in connection with Crime No.246/2021 of Konanakunte Police Station, Bangalore, for the offence punishable under Sections 3 and 9 of the Karnataka Protection of Interest Depositors in Financial Establishment Act, 2004, Section 21 of the Banning of Unregulated Deposit Schemes Act, 2019 and Sections 420, 506 read with 34 of IPC subject to the following conditions:

¶34

¶35

(i) The petitioner shall execute his personal bond for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only) with two sureties for the like-sum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court.

¶36

(ii) The petitioner shall not indulge in tampering the prosecution witnesses.

¶37

(iii) The petitioner shall appear before the jurisdictional Court on all the future hearing dates, unless exempted by the Court for any genuine cause.

¶38

(iv) The petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Trial Court without prior permission of the Court till the case registered against him is disposed of.

¶39

(v) The petitioner is directed to refund the amount within four months as undertaken. If the petitioner fails to pay the amount within the time stipulated, the State is having liberty to approach this Court for cancellation of bail.

¶40

Sd/JUDGE

¶41

Sridhar S v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sridhar S 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

Narayan @ Narayana Murthi Vs Smt Bharathi B S

William Rebello Vs Devi Prasad Shetty

Sri Vinod @ Vinod Kumar Vs State of Karnataka

Master Pavan S Vs State of Karnataka

Sri C S Tyagarajan Vs Sri B S Laxmipathy

K M Chandrashekaraiah Vs State of Karnataka