Allowed

Bhaskar B R v. State by

Karnataka HC2 Mar 2023CRL.P/868/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed the petition for anticipatory bail directing the petitioners to join investigation. Custodial investigation is to be concluded on the same day before the petitioners are enlarged on bail after executing personal bonds.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners enlarged on bail after appearing for 24 hours custodial investigation by executing personal bond of Rs. 1,00,000/- each with two sureties.

Bhaskar B R Vs State by — Cheque Dishonour | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - CRL.P No. 868 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 2^ND DAY OF MARCH, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 868 OF 2023

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

BHASKAR B R S/O RAJASHEKAR B AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS BUSINESS, R/O HOUSE NO. 350/1 3rd CROSS, DIXIT ROAD K.B EXTENSION DAVANGERE -577001.

¶8

Digitally signed by C MALATHI Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶9

DEVARAJ S S/O BASAVARAJAPPA AGED 38 YEARS BUSINESS R/O AVARAGERE VILLAGE DAVANGERE TQ & DISTRICT 577001

¶10

(BY SMT. CHENNAMMA S ADVOCATE FOR SRI. SANTOSH R NELKUDRI., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

…PETITIONERS

¶13

STATE BY RMC YARD POLICE STATION DAVANAGERE REPRESENTED BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

¶15

CRL.P No. 868 of 2023

¶16

HIGH COURT BUILDING BENGALURU 01

¶17

…RESPONDENT

¶18

(BY SRI. VINAYAKA V.S., HCGP)

¶19

THIS CRL.P IS FILED UNDER SECTION.438 CR.P.C PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONERS ON BAIL IN THE EVENT OF THEIR ARREST IN CR.NO.88/2022 REGISTERED BY R.M.C. YARD POLICE STATION, DAVANAGERE FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 409, 420 R/W 34 OF IPC.

¶20

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

¶21

ORDER

¶22

Heard Smt. Channamma S, learned counsel for Sri Santosh R. Nelkudri, for the petitioner and learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State and perused the records.

¶23

The present petition is filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C with the following prayer:

¶24

“WHEREFORE, the petitioners respectfully pray that the Hon’ble Court may be pleased to enlarge the petitioners on anticipatory bail in the event of their arrest in Crime No.88/2022 by

¶25

3 - CRL.P No. 868 of 2023

¶26

RMC Yard Police Station, Davanagere for the offence punishable under Section 409, 420 and 34 of IPC, now pending on the file of III Addl. Civil Judge & JMFC, Davangere Dist. Davangere, in the interest of justice and equity.”

¶27

The brief facts of the case are as under:

¶28

The complaint came to be lodged by

¶29

Sri K. V. Shrinivasan S/o of Sri K. V. Venkatanarayan being the accountant of L. V. Logistics Private Limited which was registered in Crime No.88/2022 on 15.12.2022 by the RMC Yard Police Station, Davanagere. According to the complaint averments, there was misappropriation of money in respect of cement bags to the extent of Rs.20,93,100/and the petitioners being the Data Entry Operators working under accused No.1, have also had hand in such misappropriation.

¶30

After registration of the case, accused No.1 appeared before the Investigating Officer and has confessed that the petitioners have also involved in the

¶31

¶32

CRL.P No. 868 of 2023

¶33

alleged crime. A sum of Rs.3,60,000/- was recovered from the custody of accused No.1.

¶34

The attempt made by the petitioners to seek anticipatory bail was turned down by the I Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Davangere by order dated 09.01.2023 in Crl.Misc.No.1449/2022. Thereafter, the petitioners are before this Court.

¶35

Smt. Channamma S, learned counsel for Sri Santosh R. Nelkudri, learned counsel for the petitioners reiterating the grounds urged in the bail petition vehemently contended that solely on the basis of the voluntary statement said to have been given by accused No.1, the petitioners have been falsely implicated in the case and sought for grant of anticipatory bail. She also pointed out that the wife of petitioner No.1/accused No.2 has delivered a baby and therefore, it is necessary for petitioner No.1 to be present to look after his wife and infant and therefore, sought for grant of anticipatory bail.

¶36

¶37

CRL.P No. 868 of 2023

¶38

Per Contra, Sri Vinayaka V. S., learned High

¶39

Court Government Pleader opposes the bail petition.

¶40

Perused the material on record meticulously in

¶41

view of the rival contentions of the parties.

¶42

Admittedly, accused No.1 has voluntarily appeared before the Investigating Officer and has given a confession statement and the Investigating Officer has also recovered Rs.3,60,000/- from the custody of accused No.1 which is a portion of the misappropriation amount. During the course of investigation, accused No.1 has revealed the names of present petitioners, who were working as accountant and clerk under accused No.1 and they also had hand in such misappropriation.

¶43

It is a settled principles of law and requires no emphasis that the confession made by the co-accused cannot be the sole basis for arraigning the present petitioners as accused persons. Anyway the said aspect of the matter can be taken note of by the Investigating Officer while filing the final report under Section 173 of

¶44

¶45

CRL.P No. 868 of 2023

¶46

Cr.P.C. and for the present, the petitioners are to be presumed as innocents.

¶47

The non appearance of the petitioners before the Investigating Officer has crippled the investigation process.

¶48

The attempt made by the petitioners to obtain an anticipatory bail having been turned down by the learned District Judge, the investigation has not progressed at all.

¶49

Whether at all, the petitioners are directly involved in the incident or not, can only be found out after thorough investigation.

¶50

Directing the petitioners to join the investigation and to cooperate with the Investigating Agency including the custodial investigation if any, would meet the ends of justice and would also facilitate the investigation process as well. Accordingly, without expressing further opinion on the merits of the matter, following order is passed:

¶51

¶52

CRL.P No. 868 of 2023

¶53

ORDER

¶54

The Criminal petition is allowed .

¶55

Petitioners are directed to appear before the Investigating Officer on 13.03.2023 at 10.00 a.m.

¶56

The Investigation Officer shall take the petitioners to the custody and conclude the investigating process on the same day before 6.00 P.M. and thereafter, the petitioners be enlarged on bail, on executing their personal bond in a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) each with two sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the trial Court.

¶57

Petitioners shall not tamper the prosecution evidence or hamper the investigation process in any manner and shall co-operate with the investigation process.

¶58

Petitioners shall attend the Court regularly.

¶59

Petitioners shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Davangere District without prior permission.

¶60

¶61

CRL.P No. 868 of 2023

¶62

Violation of any one of the conditions would entitle

¶63

the prosecution to seek for cancellation of the bail.

¶64

Sd/JUDGE

¶65

HA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 44

Bhaskar B R v. State by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhaskar B R v. State by

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 Kempamma Vs Smt Shivarathnamma

Channakeshavaiah Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Dhanraj Vs Smt. Santhoshi Latha Devi

Rohith @ Sai Vs State of Karnataka

Venkatesh G Vs the State of Karnataka

Goutham @ Gowthu Vs State of Karnataka