Allowed

Venugopal K v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC8 Jun 2022CRL.P/2626/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka allowed a criminal petition seeking anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for offences under Sections 406 and 420 IPC regarding alleged fraud and non-repayment of money. The petition was granted subject to imposing personal bond and strict conditions.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on bail in event of arrest via personal bond of Rs.2,00,000 with sureties and strict conditions including monthly appearance.

Venugopal K Vs the State of Karnataka — Bail and Remand | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 8^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

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

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.2626/2022

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

VENUGOPAL K, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, S/O L. KRISHNAPPA, R/A NO.63/93, SUNKAL STREET, BILEKAHALLI, BENGALURU – 560076. ...PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI NAGARAJA REDDY D, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY ALANAHALLI POLICE, REP. BY SPL. PP., HIGH COURT BUILDING, BANGALORE – 560001. …RESPONDENT

¶12

(BY SRI MAHESH SHETTY, HCGP)

¶13

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 438 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN THE EVENT OF HIS ARREST IN CR.NO.12/2019 OF ALANAHALLY P.S., MYSURU CITY FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 406 AND 420 OF IPC ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDL.SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, MYSURU.

¶14

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

¶15

¶16

O R D E R

¶17

This petition is filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. praying this Court to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest in respect of Crime No.12/2019 registered by Alanahally Police Station, Mysuru City, for the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 of IPC.

¶18

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

¶19

The factual matrix of the case of the prosecution is that the complainant in the complaint made an allegation against the petitioner that he had collected an amount of Rs.12,30,000/from him and he did not return the said amount and has committed fraud on him and also mentioned about the pendency of civil case in O.S.786/2017 filed by employer of this petitioner.

¶20

The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that a false allegation is made against the petitioner and he has not committed any such offence and also civil suit is pending before the Court filed by employer of this petitioner against him and hence he may be enlarged on bail and he is ready to obey

¶21

¶22

the conditions that may be imposed by this Court and is also ready to cooperate with the Investigating Officer.

¶23

Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State would submit that there was a monetary transaction between the complainant and the petitioner and the allegation is that he did not repay the amount and committed fraud.

¶24

6. Having heard the respective learned counsel and also

¶25

on perusal of the material available on record and the nature of allegations made in the complaint and also considering the gravity of the offence and accusation, the said amount was paid towards the sale consideration and also entered into agreement. Taking note of the said facts into consideration and accusations made in the complaint, it is a fit case to exercise the discretion in favour of the petitioner under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. and the petitioner shall cooperate with the Investigating Officer for investigation in the matter.

¶26

In view of the discussions made above, I pass the

following:

ORDER

The petition is allowed. Consequently, the petitioner shall be released on bail in the event of his arrest in connection with Crime No.12/2019 registered by Alanahally Police Station, Mysuru City, for the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 of IPC, subject to the following conditions:

¶31

(i) The petitioner shall surrender himself before the Investigating Officer within ten days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order and shall execute a 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 concerned Investigating Officer.

¶32

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

¶33

(iii) The petitioner shall co-operate with the Investigating Officer to complete the investigation and he shall appear before the Investigating Officer, as and when called for.

¶34

(iv) The petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Investigating Officer without prior

¶35

¶36

permission till the charge-sheet is filed or for a period of three months, whichever is earlier.

¶37

(v) The petitioner shall mark his attendance once in a month i.e., on 30^th of every month between 10.00 a.m. and 5.00 p.m., before the Investigating Officer for a period of three months or till the charge-sheet is filed, whichever is earlier.

¶38

Sd/JUDGE

¶39

Venugopal K v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Venugopal K 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

Puneeth Kumar Vs State by

Vinod @ Bulli Vs the State of Karnataka

Kiran @ Bikku Kirana Vs State by

Vazeer Ahmed Vs State of Karnataka

Shri Sharath Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Devaraju Vs State of Karnataka