Allowed

Mr Prashanth Pandey v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC14 Jun 2022CRL.P/4264/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal petition filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C., the High Court of Karnataka granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner in a fraud case. The Court allowed the grant subject to conditions including surrender, execution of a personal bond, cooperation with investigation, and restricting movement.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner was released on bail in the event of arrest in Crime No.2/2022 subject to conditions of personal bond, no tampering with witnesses, cooperation with investigation, restriction on leavin

Mr Prashanth Pandey 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 14^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

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

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.4264/2022

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

MR. PRASHANTH PANDEY AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS S/O SRI GIRIJESH PANDEY PERMANENT RESIDENT OF NO.14 BISHUNAPURA, DEORIA UTTAR PRADESH - 274 509 … PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI B.M.MOHAN KUMAR, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY CUBBON PARK POLICE STATION BENGALURU CITY REPRESENTED BY SPP., HIGH COURT BUILDING AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU-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.2/2022 OF CUBBON PARK P.S, BENGALURU CITY FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/Ss.420, 465, 468, 471, 474 R/W. 34 OF IPC AND SECTION 123 OF KARNATAKA EDUCATION ACT 1983, PENDING ON THE FILE OF

¶14

¶15

THE 8^TH ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE AT BENGALURU.

¶16

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

¶17

O R D E R

¶18

This petition is filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C., praying this Court to enlarge the petitioner/accused No.3 on bail in the event of his arrest in respect of Crime No.2/2022 registered by Cubbon Park Police Station, Bengaluru City, for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 465, 468, 471, 474, 420 read with 34 of IPC.

¶19

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

¶20

The factual matrix of the case of the prosecution is

¶21

that by suo motu complaint stated that the persons, who are claiming as Directors of Vidya Bharati Institute of Management & Technology (‘VBMIT’ for short) collecting an amount of Rs.10,000/- per semester for Bachelor Programme Business Administration; Rs.12,000/- per semester for Master Programme

¶22

¶23

Computer Application; Rs.14,000/- per semester for Advance Diploma Electric Engineering; Rs.10,000/- per semester for Diploma Electronics and Rs.14,000/- per semester for Diploma in Tourist Management and issuing the fake marks card. Hence, they indulged in cheating the general public and also made use of the fake documents to defraud the aspirants of the graduation certificate.

¶24

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that a false allegation is made and no such acts are committed by this petitioner and also he has not indulged in any such issuance of fake certificate and it is a suo motu case registered by CCB. Without any basis, a case has been registered. The learned counsel also would submit that the petitioner is ready to obey the conditions imposed by this Hon’ble Court and co-operate with Investigating Officer for investigation in the matter.

¶25

Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the State would submit that a letter was sent to the University Grants Commission to verify with regard

¶26

¶27

to the allegation and it is a heinous offence of defrauding the general public in collecting the money for issuance of certificate.

¶28

Having heard the respective counsel and also on perusal of the material available on record, a suo motu case has been registered and none of the victims have given any complaint. The letter referred by learned High Court Government Pleader is sent by the Police to the University. The University has not given any reply. When such being the case, it is a fit case to exercise the discretion in favour of the petitioner under Section 438 of Cr.P.C., subject to the condition that he has to appear before the Investigating Officer to assist him for investigation.

¶29

In view of the discussions made above, I pass the

¶30

following:

¶31

ORDER

¶32

The petition is allowed. Consequently, the

¶33

petitioner/accused No.3 shall be released on bail in the event of his arrest in connection with Crime No.2/2022 registered by Cubbon Park Police Station, Bengaluru City, for the offences

¶34

¶35

punishable under Sections 420, 465, 468, 471, 474, 420 read with 34 of IPC, subject to the following conditions:-

¶36

(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.

¶37

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

¶38

(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.

¶39

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

¶40

(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

¶41

¶42

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

¶43

Sd/JUDGE

¶44

cp*

Mr Prashanth Pandey v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr Prashanth Pandey 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

Prajwal @ Gunda Vs State of Karnataka

Anandkumar S C Vs State of Karnataka

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

Sri Jayaramaiah B M Vs State of Karnataka

Shakthi @ Sakthimurthy Vs the State of Karnataka

Boregowda Vs State of Karnataka