Sri Uday Periyaswamy Bhaskar v. State by Rajajinagar Police

Karnataka HC27 Jan 2022CRL.P/89/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Hearing a petition for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. The Court found that specific categorical allegations in the complaint indicated the petitioner required personal presence for investigation regarding a fake bank guarantee case, making it an unfit instance for exercising anticipatory bail powers under that section.

What did the court decide?

Granted anticipatory bail

Sri Uday Periyaswamy Bhaskar Vs State by Rajajinagar… — Cheating and Forgery | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2022

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

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

¶5

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.89/2022

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI UDAY PERIYASWAMY BHASKAR, S/O PERIYASWAMY N, AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.105, LILLIES BLOCK, PAVANI RESIDENCY, BEHIND FOOD WORLD, YELAHANKA NEW TOWN, BENGALURU NORTH, BENGALURU-560064. ...PETITIONER

¶8

(BY SRI PRANESH CHANDRA, ADVOCATE)

¶9

AND:

¶10

STATE BY RAJAJINAGAR POLICE, REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT COMPLEX, BANGALORE-01. ...RESPONDENT

¶11

(BY SRI K.K. KRISHNA KUMAR, HCGP)

¶12

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.84/2021 OF RAJAJINAGAR P.S., BENGALURU CITY FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 406, 465, 468, 471, 420, 120-B READ WITH SECTION 34 OF IPC ON THE FILE OF THE 4tH ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE COURT AT BENGALURU.

¶13

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE 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 this Court to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest in respect of Crime No.84/2021 registered by the Rajajinagar Police Station, Bengaluru, for the offence punishable under Sections 406, 465, 468, 471, 420, 120B read with Section 34 of IPC.

¶17

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

¶18

The factual matrix of the case is that the

¶19

complainant has lodged the complaint stating that he is running Vsaga Infra Projects LLP and was awarded the work order for value of Rs.22,67,00,000/- in the Smart City Project at Mangalore. As per the terms of the said work order, the complainant was required to furnish bank guarantee to the tune of 5% of the total value of the work order amounting to Rs.1,13,35,000/-. In connection with getting the bank guarantee, he had approached the accused persons and accused No.3 introduced accused No.4 and accused No.4 in turn made

¶20

¶21

arrangements to get the bank guarantee and sought to pay 5% and accordingly this petitioner had collected Rs.3,40,000/- in the process of getting bank guarantee and the bank guarantee provided is also a fake bank guarantee. The matter is under investigation and case is registered in Crime No.84/2021 for the offence punishable under Sections 406, 465, 468, 471, 420, 120B read with Section 34 of IPC.

¶22

The learned counsel for the petitioner would vehemently contend that this petitioner had not indulged in any criminal act in getting any fake bank guarantee and only allegation against this petitioner is that accused No.4 was introduced to the complainant and payment was made in respect of M/s. Finacle to the tune of Rs.68,01,000/-. The learned counsel submits that this Court has already granted bail in favour of accused No.3 and this petitioner will assist the Investigating Officer and hence he may be granted anticipatory bail.

¶23

Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State would submit that specific allegation is made against this petitioner and this

¶24

¶25

petitioner has received an amount of Rs.3,40,000/- vide RTGS on 11.01.2021 and hence there is a prima facie material against the petitioner in indulging in getting the fake bank guarantee in favour of the complainant and hence it requires personal presence of the petitioner.

¶26

Having heard the respective learned counsel and also

¶27

looking into the complaint averments, in page No.3 categorical allegation is made that an amount of Rs.3,40,000/- was transferred to the account of the petitioner on 11.01.2021 through RTGS and also document of fake bank guarantee is given and hence it requires personal presence of the petitioner for investigation and hence it is not a fit case to exercise the powers under Section 438 of Cr.P.C.

¶28

In view of the discussions made above, I pass the

¶29

following:

¶30

ORDER

¶31

The petition is rejected.

¶32

Sd/JUDGE

¶33

Sri Uday Periyaswamy Bhaskar v. State by Rajajinagar Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Uday Periyaswamy Bhaskar v. State by Rajajinagar Police

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

Venkatesh R @ Mathi Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Vignesh Vs State of Karnataka

Seema @ Shawar Vs State of Karnataka

Nayaz Ahmed Vs State of Karnataka

Nagesh K E Vs State by Arasikere Police Station

Riyaz Pasha @ Illiyas @ Illu Vs the State of Karnataka