Dismissed

Anandkumar S C v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC13 Jun 2022CRL.P/2906/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Bangalore bench of the Karnataka High Court rejected the Criminal Petition for anticipatory bail filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. The petitioner, a branch manager accused of forging documents causing financial loss, was denied bail as serious allegations requiring further investigation necessitated his presence in judicial custody.

What did the court decide?

Petition filed for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. was rejected.

Anandkumar S C Vs State of Karnataka — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13^TH DAY OF JUNE 2022

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH

¶5

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.2906/2022

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

ANANDKUMAR S C S/O CHANNEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS R/AT NO.2806, BASAVARAJA CIRCLE 3^RD STAGE, VIJAYANAGARA MYSURU – 570 017 …PETITIONER

¶8

(BY SRI AJAY S, ADVOCATE)

¶9

AND:

¶10

STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY SARASWATHIPURAM P.S. MYSURU – 570 009 REP. BY GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE HIGH COURT BUILDING BENGALURU – 560 001 …RESPONDENT

¶11

(BY SRI MAHESH SHETTY, HCGP)

¶12

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 438 CR.P.C PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN THE EVENT OF HIS ARREST IN CRIME NO.16/2022 REGISTERED BY SARASWATHIPURAM POLICE STATION, MYSURU FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 406, 420, 465, 468, 471 OF IPC PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE IV ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MYSURU.

¶13

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

¶14

¶15

O R D E R

¶16

This petition is filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest in respect of Crime No.16/2022 of Saraswathiuram Police Station registered for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 465, 468, 471 of IPC.

¶17

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

¶18

The factual matrix of the case of the prosecution is that the complainant is the owner of Srikanteshwara T.V.Centre having 130 branches all over the State and more than 1600 employees are working. This petitioner is working as Branch Manager for last three years at Mysore. His work is to sell the home appliances to the customers through finance company. He indulged in getting all fake documents and caused loss to the tune of Rs.26,97,012/-. The complaint also indicate the list of the names of the fictitious account and the documents. There are also specific allegations made that the documents which have been given by the earlier customers

¶19

¶20

were used for this product. Hence, sought action against the petitioner. The police registered a case in Crime No.16/2022 of Saraswathiuram Police Station and the matter is under investigation.

¶21

Learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that false allegations are made against this petitioner and this petitioner is not involved in such acts and has not committed any offences as alleged in the complaint. He also submits that the petitioner is not indulged in forging the documents and opening fictitious account and the allegations that he himself used to open the account and make the payment as per the transaction is baseless. Hence, seeks for enlargement on bail.

¶22

Per contra , learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State would submit that this petitioner being Branch Manager, he himself has indulged in such acts and caused loss to the tune of 26,97,012/-. The matter is still under investigation and his presence is required for further investigation in the matter. Hence, he prays to dismiss the petition.

¶23

¶24

6. Having heard the learned Counsel appearing for

¶25

the petitioner and also learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the State and perusal of the entire materials available on record and also taking note of the allegations made in the complaint, the petitioner has not disputed the fact that he was working as Branch Manager and the allegations are also very serious with regard to opening fictitious accounts in the name of 76 fictitious persons and indulged in the offences of criminal breach of trust and fraud. When such serious allegations are made with regard to making using of the earlier customers documents and using all the said documents that too forging the documents to open fictitious account, the matter requires to be investigated in detail. Hence, the presence of this petitioner is required for further investigation. Therefore, it is not a fit case to exercise the power under Section 438 of Cr.P.C and the petition is rejected.

¶26

Sd/JUDGE

¶27

KSR

Anandkumar S C v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anandkumar S C 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

Hemanth Ghop @ Jharkhand Vs State of Karnataka

Smt Kalpana Vs the State of Karnataka

Nagaraja B Vs the State of Karnataka

Prajwal @ Gunda Vs State of Karnataka

Nagaraja K.S. @ Naga Vs the State of Karnataka

Mukthiyar @ Ummar Basha @ Ummar Mukthiyar Vs the State of Karnataka