Dismissed

The State of Karnataka v. Ujaka Pitar Chigoji

Karnataka HC13 Oct 2023CRL.P/104310/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka dismissed the State's petition under Sec. 439(2) Cr.P.C. seeking cancellation of bail. The Court held that the accused had not violated bail terms and the police failed to justify the need for custodial interrogation, noting that passport impounding in a separate visa case negated the apprehension of absconding.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Petition filed by the State under Sec. 439(2) Cr.P.C. to cancel bail was dismissed.

The State of Karnataka Vs Ujaka Pitar Chigoji — Cheque Dishonour | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2023:KHC-D:12440 CRL.P No. 104310 of 2022

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 13^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI

¶7

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 104310 OF 2022

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY P.S.I SADALAGA POLICE STATION, THROUGH THE ADDL. STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, OFFICE OF THE ADVOCATE GENERAL, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SMT. GIRIJA S. HIREMATH, HCGP)

¶12

AND:

¶13

ANNAPURNA CHINNAPPA DANDAGAL

¶14

Digitally signed by ANNAPURNA CHINNAPPA DANDAGAL

¶15

SHRI. UJAKA PITAR CHIGOJI, AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O. MUMBAI EAST, NALASOPARA, DISTRICT PALAGHAR, MAHARASHTRA STATE.

¶16

…RESPONDENT (BY SRI. VITTHAL S. TELI, ADVOCATE)

¶17

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/SEC. 439(2) OF CR.P.C, PRAYING THIS COURT TO, SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE VII ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE BELAGAVI, SITTING AT CHIKKODI IN CRI. MISC. PETITION NO. 5007/2022 DATED 19.01.2022 IN SADALAGA P.S. CRIME NO. 80/2021 FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE U/SEC. 419 AND 420 R/W SEC. 34 OF IPC 66(C), 66(D) I.T. ACT, 2008 AND DIRECT THE CONCERNED POLICE TO ARREST THE RESPONDENT/ ACCUSED AND COMMIT HIM TO CUSTODY.

¶18

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

¶19

2 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:12440 CRL.P No. 104310 of 2022

¶20

ORDER

¶21

State by Sadalga Police has filed this petition u/sec.439(2) Cr.P.C. to set aside the order dated 19.01.2022 in Crl.Misc.No.5007/2022 on the file of VII Addl.Sessions Judge, Belagavi, sitting at Chikodi granting bail to the respondent who is arraigned as accused No.1 in Crime No.80/2021 of Sadalga P.S. for the offences punishable u/sec.419 and 420 r/w/s 34 IPC and Sections 66-C and 66-D of Information Technology Act, 2008 (for short, ‘I.T. Act’) and direct the concerned police to arrest him and commit him to the custody.

¶22

In support of the petition, the State has

¶23

contended that the impugned order is contrary to law, facts and material collected during investigation. The allegations are that respondent/accused No.1 along with remaining accused has stolen Rs.94,72,951/- by hacking the account of complainant bank. He is the main accused. In order to conduct investigation, it is necessary to take him into the custody. While granting bail, the Sessions

¶24

3 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:12440 CRL.P No. 104310 of 2022

¶25

Court has not taken into consideration the fact that he is resident of Nigeria and in the event of he jumping the bail, it is difficult for the concerned police to secure his presence. The respondent/ accused No.1 has not disclosed his real name and address at Nigeria, but claims to be residing in Maharashtra. He may also threaten the prosecution witnesses.

¶26

Even after the period for which he has been granted visa has expired, respondent/accused No.1 has remained in India. In view of the same, another case is registered in Crime No.97/2021 by the Sadalga Police Station u/sec.14 of Foreigners Act, 2004, 7(2) of Foreigners Order Act, 1948 against him and is committed to the Court of Sessions in C.C.No.1052/2021. The custodial interrogation of respondent/accused No.1 is required to examine how he has hacked the account of complainant bank. The voluntary statement of respondent/accused No.1 state that one Tony has hacked the account and transferred the money. It is necessary to investigate who the said Tony is and to ascertain his

¶27

¶28

NC: 2023:KHC-D:12440 CRL.P No. 104310 of 2022

¶29

whereabouts. There is also allegations that respondent/accused No.1 is indulged in Hawala which is also required to be investigated. While granting bail, the Sessions Court has failed to consider these aspects and prays to allow the petition and cancel the bail granted to respondent/accused No.1.

¶30

After due service of notice, respondent/accused No.1 has appeared through counsel and contested the petition stating that after providing opportunity to the prosecution, bail was granted to respondent/accused No.1 and there are no allegations that he has violated any of

¶31

the terms and conditions of the bail and consequently there is no justifiable reason for seeking cancellation of the bail. In this regard, he has relied upon the order passed by co-ordinate bench of this Court in Crl.P.No.4598/2020 dated 05.11.2020 and sought for dismissal of the petition.

¶32

Heard arguments and perused the record.

¶33

Thus, the State is seeking cancelation of bail

¶34

granted to respondent /accused No.1 contending that he is a citizen of Nigeria, his interrogation is necessary to find

¶35

5 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:12440 CRL.P No. 104310 of 2022

¶36

out the manner in which he commited the offence in question, further information regarding involvement of one Tony is yet to be collected and having regard to the fact that respondent/accused No.1 is a citizen of Nigeria, in all probabilities he may leave India and thereby protract and defeat the proceedings.

¶37

Based on complaint filed by one Ashok Jinnu Bankapur, General Manager of Sri Arihant Credit Souharda Sahakari Limited, Borgaon, case was registered in Crime No.80/2021 for the offences punishable u/sec. 419 and 420 r/w/s 34 IPC and Sections 66-C and 66-D of I.T. Act against respondent/accused No.1 and 3 others and investigation was taken up. The allegations in the complaint are that the Sri Arihant Credit Souharda Sahakari Limited, Borgaon Society is having a savings bank account No.3090005437843. As on 27.05.2021 a sum of Rs. 83,95,977/- were in credit of the said account. However, at 8.20 and 8.30 a.m. accountant Sheetal Ajeet Nanda received two messages to her cell No.9980148877 stating a sum of Rs.79,57,675/- are credited to 16

¶38

6 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:12440 CRL.P No. 104310 of 2022

¶39

accounts as detailed in the complaint. The said amount

¶40

was transferred by hacking the account of the Bank.

¶41

Based on the said complaint, a case was registered and investigation was taken up. During investigation, respondent/accused No.1 to 3 were arrested. In fact, on 14.06.2021 the complainant police

¶42

gave requisition seeking police custody of respondent/accused No.1 and 2 for a period of 14 days. On 18.06.2021, the jurisdictional Magistrate has granted police custody of respondent/accused No.1 and 2 for a period of 8 days from 19.06.2021 to 26.06.2021. On 21.06.2021, the concerned police have returned respondent/accused No.2 to the judicial custody. On 23.06.2021, the concerned police have returned respondent/accused No.1 to the police custody on the ground that investigation is completed and his police custody is not required till 26.06.2021. Thus, though initially the police custody of respondent/accused no.1 was sought for a total period of 14 days, the court granted his police custody for 8 days, the concerned police have

¶43

7 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:12440 CRL.P No. 104310 of 2022

¶44

utilised his police custody only for 5 days. During this period, the concerned police have interrogated him as to his involvement and the involvement of other accused. Therefore, the State is not justified in seeking cancellation of bail on the ground that his custodial presence is required for investigation.

¶45

It is pertinent to note that subsequent to the present case, for violation of visa condition another case is registered for respondent/accused No.1 by the petitioner/police in Crime No.97/2021 and in the said case, his passport is impounded. Therefore, the apprehension of the State that he may leave the Country is not justified. If Crime No.97/2021 is disposed of earlier in point of time and there is possibility of returning the passport to him by this Court, the prosecution may seek impounding of the same in the present case. The main ground for the State to maintain this petition is that the custodial presence of respondent/accused No.1 is required for investigation and not on the ground that there is any violation of the terms and conditions of the bail granted to him. Once bail is

¶46

8 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:12440 CRL.P No. 104310 of 2022

¶47

granted, the accused acquire a right to remain on bail unless and until he violates any of the terms and conditions of the bail. In the present case, the State has not made out any grounds for canceling the bail granted to the respondent/accused No.1. Therefore, there is no justification for the state to seek cancellation of bail

¶48

granted to him. In the result, the petition fails and accordingly the following:

¶49

ORDER

¶50

Criminal Petition filed under u/sec. 439(2) Cr.P.C. by the State is dismissed.

¶51

Sd/JUDGE

¶52

CLK/KGK

¶53

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 38

The State of Karnataka v. Ujaka Pitar Chigoji

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The State of Karnataka v. Ujaka Pitar Chigoji

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

Amaraiah M Hiremath Vs Dr R Mahabaleshwar Reddy

Jabiulla Vs the State of Karnataka

Nagesh S/O Ratnakar Kurudekar Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Nagendra P S/O P Prabhakar Vs the State of Karnataka

Chandrima Sanyal Vs the State of Karnataka

K Muniraju Vs B R Madusudan