Allowed

Sri. Varun Gurjar v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC15 Nov 2022CRL.P/8386/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Karnataka High Court allowed Criminal Petition No.8386/2022 for anticipatory bail. The court held that despite allegations of cheating and blackmail, there were no impediments to bail given the nature of offences. The petition was allowed subject to stringent conditions regarding surrender, jurisdiction, and no tampering with witnesses.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner enlarged on bail on executing personal bond for Rs.50,000/- with one surety for Rs.50,000/- subject to six conditions.

Sri. Varun Gurjar Vs State of Karnataka — Cheating and Forgery | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

DATED THIS THE 15^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2022

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA BADAMIKAR

¶5

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.8386/2022

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI.VARUN GURJAR S/O DIGPAL GURJAR AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS R/AT NO.52, GUNA ROAD NEAR BANKE VIHARI MANDIR VOREJI BALIGALI, WARD NO.01 MAKSUDANGARH, GUNA MADYA PRADESH – 473 287 ….PETITIONER (BY SRI.MARILINGE GOWDA, ADVOCATE)

¶8

AND:

¶9

STATE OF KARNATAKA REPTD. BY OFFICER IN CHARGE OF POLICE STATION VARTHUR POLICE STATION BENGALURU REP. BY SPP HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BANGALORE – 562 117 ...RESPONDENT

¶10

(BY SRI.K.NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP)

¶11

¶12

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 438 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN THE EVENT OF THEIR

¶13

¶14

ARREST IN CR.NO.114/2022 OF VARTHUR POLICE STATION, BENGALURU CITY FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 417, 420, 506 OF IPC PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE ACJM, BENGALURU RURAL, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT.

¶15

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

¶16

ORDER

¶17

This petition is filed by the petitioner under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. seeking anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest in Crime No.114 of 2022 of Varthur Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 506, 420,417 of IPC.

¶18

Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State and perused the records.

¶19

The brief factual matrix leading to the case is that;

¶20

The allegations made in the complaint discloses that the complainant was married with one Samir in 2013. Since 2017 she is in live-in relationship with the present petitioner. It is alleged that the petitioner has taken a sum of Rs.2,00,000/from her and when she sought for repayment, he blackmailed

¶21

¶22

her of exhibiting the compromised photographs between themselves and as such she filed a complaint regarding cheating. On the basis of the complaint, crime was registered for the offences punishable under Sections 417, 420, 506 of IPC.

¶23

The petitioner approached the learned Sessions judge seeking anticipatory bail but Sessions Judge has rejected the bail petition. Therefore, the petitioner is before this Court.

¶24

Having heard the arguments and perusing the records, it is evident that the petitioner was married to one Samir who is residing in Singapore. The said marriage was alleged to have been solemnized in 2013 and admittedly there is no divorce between them. Further the allegation discloses that the present petitioner and the complainant had live-in relationship and they are residing together from July 2017. For five years they continued in live-in relationship. Though in the initial portion of the complaint there are allegations of forcible

¶25

¶26

sex and rape but they are not substantiated so for. For last five years they are continuing in live-in relationship.

¶27

Further the allegations of the complainant are only restricted regarding cheating and threatening when the repayment of Rs.2,00,000/- was sought. The offences alleged are not exclusively punishable with death or life imprisonment, and are triable by the learned Magistrate. Under these circumstances, considering the relationship between the parties, I do not find any impediment for admitting the petitioner on bail. The other apprehensions raised by the learned HCGP can be meted out by imposing certain conditions. Hence, the petition needs to be allowed by imposing certain stringent conditions. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:-

¶28

ORDER

¶29

The petition is allowed .

¶30

The petitioner is directed to be enlarged on bail

¶31

in event of his arrest, in Crime No.114/2022 of Varthur Police Station, registered for the offences

¶32

¶33

punishable under Sections 506, 420, 417 of IPC, on his executing personal bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/(Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with one surety for the like-sum to the satisfaction of the Investigating

¶34

Officer/SHO, subject to the following conditions:

¶35

i) He shall not indulge in any of the criminal activities.

¶36

ii) He shall not tamper the prosecution witnesses either directly or indirectly.

¶37

iii) He shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Court, without prior permission.

¶38

iv) He shall attend the Court on all the dates of hearing, unless he is exempted by a specific order.

¶39

v) He shall co-operate for speedy disposal of the matter.

¶40

vi) He shall surrender before the Investigating Officer/SHO within 15 days from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order and in the event of their surrender, the Investigating Officer/SHO shall release the petitioner as directed above.

¶41

Sd/- JUDGE

¶42

PKN

Sri. Varun Gurjar v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Varun Gurjar 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

Anil Kumar H S Vs State by Nandini Layout P S

Sri. Manjunath J Vs State of Karnataka

Raghu Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. Sunka Bhovi Vs State of Karnataka by

Sri Harish R Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Chiranjeevi N R Vs State of Karnataka