Dismissed

Smt.Bina Rajesh Dedhia v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC3 Jan 2022CRL.P/7774/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka rejected a criminal petition filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. seeking anticipatory bail. The petitioners were accused of misappropriating gold and committing fraud. The court held that due to the gravity of the offences, it was not fit to grant anticipatory bail.

What did the court decide?

The Criminal Petition for anticipatory bail is rejected.

Smt.Bina Rajesh Dedhia Vs the State of Karnataka — Anticipatory Bail | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 3^RD DAY OF JANUARY, 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

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

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.7774/2021

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

1 . SMT.BINA RAJESH DEDHIA (WRONGLY MENTIONED AS MEENA RAJESH DEDIYA IN THE FIR) W/O RAJESH DEDHIA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS R/AT NO.701, RAJVI BUIDLING CHS LTS K.A. SUBRAMANIUM ROAD MATUNGA, EAST MUMBAI-400 019

¶9

2 . DARSHIL RAJESH DEDHIA S/O RAJESH DEDHIA AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS R/AT NO.601, HORIZON SAMYAK MULUND HETAL CHS ZAVER ROAD, MULUND WEST MUMBAI-400 080

¶10

3 . GIRISH MULJI VORA (WRONGLY MENTIONED AS GIRISH SHAH IN THE FIR) S/O.MULJI VORA AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS R/AT NO.601,

¶11

¶12

HORIZON SAMYAK MULUND HETAL CHS ZAVER ROD, MULUND WEST MUMBAI-400 080.

¶13

… PETITIONERS

¶14

(BY SRI NISHIT KUMAR SHETTY, ADVOCATE)

¶15

AND:

¶16

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY S.J. PARK POLICE STATION (NOW INVESTIGATED BY CUBBON PARK POLICE STATION) RERPESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDING BENGALURU-560 001

¶17

… RESPONDENT

¶18

(BY SRI VINAYAKA V.S. HCGP)

¶19

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 438 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN THE EVENT OF THEIR ARREST IN CR.NO.34/2021 OF S.J.PARK POLICE STATION, BENGALURU, FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 506, 504, 406, 420 R/W SECTION 34 OF IPC.

¶20

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

¶21

O R D E R

¶22

This petition is filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. praying

¶23

to enlarge the petitioners on bail, in the event of their arrest in respect of Crime No.34/2021 registered by S.J. Park Police

¶24

¶25

Station, Bengaluru City, for the offences punishable under Sections 506, 504, 406 and 420 read with Section 34 of IPC.

¶26

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondentState.

¶27

The factual matrix of the case is that, these petitioners along with accused No.2 obtained gold ingot weighing 12 Kgs. and committed fraud on the complainant and other complainant witnesses and also caused life threat.

¶28

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would

¶29

submit that the accused No.2 has already been granted bail and these petitioners are ready to obey the conditions that may be imposed by this Court and they are also ready to assist the Investigating Officer.

¶30

The learned counsel for the petitioners would further submit that the case is transferred from S.J. Park Police Station

¶31

to Cubbon Park Police Station on the ground that the

¶32

¶33

investigation is not properly conducted. Hence, the petitioners may be enlarged on bail.

¶34

Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State would submit that these petitioners have also indulged in the crime along with accused No.2 in taking the gold to the tune of 12 Kgs. and an attempt is also made to assault, when the police tried to apprehend them. He would further submit that the Court has to take note of the seriousness of the offence as alleged in the complaint and these petitioners have also absconded and charge sheet has been filed showing them as absconding.

¶35

Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and also learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State and having taken note of the gravity of the offence, while invoking Section 438 of Cr.P.C., the Court has to take note of the gravity of the offence. It is important to note that the allegation against these petitioners is that the petitioners along with accused No.2 have misappropriated 12 Kgs. of gold taking ingot from the complainant as well as other

¶36

¶37

complainant witnesses and committed fraud on the complainant witnesses.

¶38

Having considered the allegations made in the complaint as well as the statement of complainant witnesses, it is not a fit case to exercise the powers under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. to enlarge the petitioners on bail.

¶39

In view of the discussions made above, I proceed to

¶40

pass the following:

¶41

ORDER

¶42

The Criminal Petition is rejected.

¶43

Sd/JUDGE

¶44

Smt.Bina Rajesh Dedhia v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt.Bina Rajesh Dedhia 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

Hanmanthrao S/O Mallikarjun Vs the State through Gescom (v) P.S.

Goverdhan Reddy S/O Veerabhadra Reddy Vs Anil Patil S/O P.B.Patil

Lalita and Anr. Vs State of Karnataka and Anr.

Ravi Vs the State of Karnataka

Dharanikumar P K Vs the State of Karnataka by

Lokesh S L Vs State of Karnataka