Allowed

Neelappa Agadi v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC7 Jul 2022CRL.P/3628/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A criminal petition filed for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. was dismissed. The petitioner, accused of introducing parties in a loan cheating case, was granted bail upon surrendering within ten days and cooperating with the investigation.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner allowed release on anticipatory bail in event of arrest subject to personal bond of Rs. 2,00,000 with two sureties and cooperation with investigation.

Neelappa Agadi Vs the State of Karnataka — Cheating and Forgery | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 7^TH DAY OF JULY, 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

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

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.3628/2022

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

NEELAPPA AGADI, S/O GURUNANJAPPA AGADI, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, R/AT SANU BUILDING, 2^ND CROSS, VIDYANAGAR, NEAR UDAY PRINTING PRESS, HAVERI-581110.

¶9

ALSO AT VISHWAMANA SHIKSHANA MATHU ABIRIDDI SAMSTHE, HAVERI-581110. ...PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI PRAVEEN C, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY CHITRADURGA TOWN POLICE STATION, CHITRDURGA-581110.

¶13

NOW BY CID POLICE CARLTON HOUSE, BENGALURU-560001. REP BY S.P.P., HIGH COURT COMPLEX, BENGALURU-560001. ...RESPONDENT

¶14

(BY SRI MAHESH SHETTY, HCGP)

¶15

¶16

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 438 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENT POLICE TO RELEASE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN THE EVENT OF HIS ARREST IN CR.NO.224/2021 ON THE COMPLAINT OF Dr. SANJAY G. DANGE REGISTERED BY CHITRADURGA TOWN P.S., NOW INVESTIGATING BY CID POLICE, BANGALORE FOR THE OFFENCE PUISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 143, 506, 409, 420 READ WITH 149 OF IPC, NOW PENDING BEFORE THE HONBLE COURT OF PRL. CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN) AND JMFC, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT, CHITRADURGA.

¶17

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

¶18

O R D E R

¶19

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.224/2021 registered by Chitradurga Town Police Station, now investigated by CID police, Bangalore, for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 506, 409, 420 read with 149 of IPC.

¶20

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

¶21

The factual matrix of the case of the prosecution is that this petitioner had introduced accused No.1 to the complainant when the complainant was searching for a nursing

¶22

¶23

home and while introducing him introduced that he is a financer.

¶24

It is an allegation that in order to get the loan, the accused persons promised that they are going to get the loan of Rs.10 Crores and they demanded 2% interest without surety for the said amount and insisted to pay Rs.50 lakhs and accordingly the complainant made the payment of Rs.50 lakhs and out of that, returned Rs.15 lakhs and did not repay the balance amount. Based on the complaint, the police have registered the case against this petitioner and also other accused persons.

¶25

The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit

¶26

that this petitioner is accused No.8 and accused Nos.1 to 4 are residing at Chitradurga and allegation is that this petitioner took

¶27

the complainant to Chitradurga, but no allegation of he has received any commission and also for having made any payment in favour of the petitioner. The learned counsel would contend that when there is no any payment and only he is an introducer to accused No.1 and no allegation that he had received the amount from complainant or accused No.1, hence he may be enlarged on bail.

¶28

¶29

Per contra, the learned High Court Government

¶30

Pleader appearing for the respondent-State would submit that accused No.1 is the kingpin and this petitioner introduced accused No.1 to the complainant and consequent upon introducing accused No.1 to 4 to the complainant, he parted with Rs.50 lakhs and out of that only an amount of Rs.15 lakhs was paid and not returned the balance amount and hence there is a prima facie case against the petitioner and the presence of the petitioner is required to probe the matter.

¶31

Having heard the respective learned counsel and also on perusal of the material available on record, specific allegation is that the complainant had paid an amount of Rs.50 lakhs and thereafter he has received Rs.15 lakhs, but not received the remaining amount. The specific allegation against this petitioner is that he introduced accused Nos.1 to 4 to the complainant in order to get the loan of Rs.10 Crores and commission was paid to accused Nos.1 to 4 and not this petitioner. Except the allegation of introducing accused Nos.1 to 4 to the complainant, no payment was made in favour of the petitioner as per the case of the prosecution. When such being the material available on record, it is a fit case to exercise the discretion in favour of the

¶32

¶33

petitioner. The petitioner shall cooperate with the Investigating Officer for further investigation in the matter.

¶34

In view of the discussions made above, I pass the

¶35

following:

¶36

ORDER

¶37

The petition is allowed. Consequently, the petitioner shall

¶38

be released on bail in the event of his arrest in connection with Crime No.224/2021 registered by Chitradurga Town Police Station, now investigated by CID police, Bangalore, for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 506, 409, 420 read with 149 of IPC, subject to the following conditions:

¶39

(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.

¶40

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

¶41

¶42

(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.

¶43

(iv) The petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Investigating Officer without prior permission till the charge-sheet is filed or for a period of three months, whichever is earlier.

¶44

(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.

¶45

Sd/JUDGE

¶46

Neelappa Agadi v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Neelappa Agadi 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

Prabhu Vs State of Karnataka

M/S Arundathi Poly Clinic and Diagnostics Vs the State Appropriate Authority (Saa)

Mr.Yasin Vs the State of Karnataka

K. N. Krishnegowda Vs R. Pallavi

Sri Prajwalraj .M @ Prajwal Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Balaji C Vs State of Karnataka