Allowed

Preetesh R Jain v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC23 Mar 2023CRL.P/249/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka allowed an anticipatory bail petition filed under Section 438 CrPC against illegal possession of goods under IPC sections 420 and 506. The court directed the petitioner to join investigation and specified time-bound reporting and bond conditions.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail in event of arrest subject to appearing before investigating agency on a fixed date, availability for custodial interrogation, and execution of personal bond with sureties.

Preetesh R Jain Vs the State of Karnataka — Cheating and Forgery | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

CRL.P No. 249 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 23^RD DAY OF MARCH, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 249 OF 2023

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

PREETESH R JAIN, S/O RAJENDRA KUMAR JAIN, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, R/AT: NO.1041, 'F' CROSS, 4TH 'M' BLOCK, NEAR STAR BAZAAR, SSI AREA, RAJAJINAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 010.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI GOPAL SINGH, ADVOCATE (VC))

¶11

AND:

¶12

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY HALASURU GATE POLICE STATION, BANGALORE - 560002, REPRESENTED BY SPP, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BANGALORE - 560 001.

¶13

…RESPONDENT

¶14

Digitally signed by R MANJUNATHA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶15

(BY SRI VINAYAKA V S, HCGP )

¶16

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.438 CR.P.C PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN THE EVENT OF HIS ARREST IN CR.NO.305/2022 OF HALASURGATE P.S., BENGALURU CITY FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S.420 AND 506 OF IPC PENDING ON THE FILE OF LIX ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT BENGALURU.THE LIX ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, CCH-60 BENGALURU CITY HAS REJECTED THE BAIL PETITION ON 31.12.2022 IN CRL.MISC.NO.12774/2022.

¶17

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

¶18

¶19

CRL.P No. 249 of 2023

¶20

O R D E R

¶21

Heard Sri.Gopal Singh, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri.Vinayaka V.S., learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent-State.

¶22

The present petition is filed by accused No.1 under

¶23

Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. with the following prayer:

¶24

“Wherefore the petitioner humbly pray before the Honourable court to be pleased to allow the petition and be pleased to direct the respondent Halasuru Gate Police to release the petitioner in the event of his arrest in Crime No.305/2022, the LIX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, at Bengaluru registered for offence punishable u/s 420 and 506 of Indian Penal Code imposing any conditions for which act of kindness the petitioner shall ever pray.”

¶25

3. Brief facts of the case is as under:

¶26

The complaint came to be lodged by one Bharath kumar Rawal son of late Bhavar Lal Rawal, whereby Halasurugate Police Station, Bengaluru city, registered a case in Crime

¶27

3 - CRL.P No. 249 of 2023

¶28

No.305/2022 on 23.12.2022 for the offences punishable under Section 420 and 506 of Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’)

¶29

The gist of the complaint averments reveal that the complainant and the accused were known to each other and there was business transactions between them. In pursuance of the same, he has taken 1 kg., 200 grams of gold bangles with an assurance that he would get 2% profit per month dealing with the gold ornaments and believing the words of the accused, the complainant parted away the gold bangles weighing 1 k.g., 200 grams and thereafter the petitioner has cheated the complainant.

¶30

After registering of the case, the matter has been investigated.

¶31

In the meantime, the petitioner approached the LIX Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge (CCH-60), Bengaluru, for grant of bail in Criminal Miscellaneous No.12774/2022. The learned Sessions Judge by order dated 31.12.2022 rejected the prayer of the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner is before this Court.

¶32

4 - CRL.P No. 249 of 2023

¶33

Reiterating the grounds urged in the petition, learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contends that there is no proof for having parted away 1 k.g., 200 grams of gold bangles by the complainant to the petitioner and it is a false complaint lodged by the complainant against the petitioner and the complaint was lodged in view of the business rivalry and sought for grant of anticipatory bail.

¶34

Per contra learned High Court Government Pleader opposes the bail petition contending that the offence is serious enough and therefore custodial interrogation of the petitioner is very much necessary to unearth the truth in the incident and sought for rejection of the anticipatory bail.

¶35

In view of the rival contentions, this Court perused the materials on record meticulously.

¶36

On such perusal of the material on record, it is seen that there is a force in the arguments put forthwith on behalf of the petitioner that there are no documents to show that the complainant has parted away 1 kg 200 grams of gold bangles to the hands of the petitioner for the purpose of selling it and getting a profit at the rate of 2% per month.

¶37

5 - CRL.P No. 249 of 2023

¶38

Anyway, these aspects of the matter are to be investigated by the investigating agency and for such purpose custodial interrogation of the complainant is also necessary. However, taking note of the fact that the petitioner is not available to the investigating agency, directing the petitioner to join the investigation at the earliest, would meet the ends of justice.

¶39

Accordingly, this Court pass the following

¶40

ORDER

¶41

The Criminal Petition is allowed . Consequently, the petitioner – accused No.1 shall be released on bail, in the event of his arrest in connection with Crime No.305/2022 of Halasurugate Police Station, Bengaluru city, for the offences punishable under Sections 420 and 506 IPC, subject to the following conditions:

¶42

The petitioner is directed to appear before the investigating agency on 31.03.2023 at 10.00 a.m..

¶43

Investigating Officer is at liberty to take the petitioner to custody and complete the custodial investigation on the same day before 5.00 p.m. and thereafter, enlarge the petitioner on bail by executing a personal bond in a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) with two

¶44

¶45

CRL.P No. 249 of 2023

¶46

sureties for the like-sum to the satisfaction of the trial Court.

¶47

The petitioner shall co-operate with the Investigating Agency.

¶48

The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when called and attend the Court regularly an all dates of hearing.

¶49

The petitioner shall mark his attendance before the Investigating Officer on every alternate Sunday between 10.00 am and 2.00 pm., till the final report is filed.

¶50

Petitioner shall not directly or indirectly hamper the investigation process or tamper the prosecution witnesses in any manner.

¶51

Petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of Bangalore without prior permission.

¶52

Violation of any one of the conditions would entitle the prosecution to seek for cancellation of the bail.

¶53

Ordered accordingly.

¶54

Sd/JUDGE

¶55

GVP

Preetesh R Jain v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Preetesh R Jain 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

Smt. Jayalakshmi Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri.Harisha Vs the State by C N Halli Police Station

Infanulla R Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. Biswajit Saha Vs State of Karnataka

Mohammed Ansif Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Tava Obalareddy Vs the State of Karnataka