Allowed

Shashikumar M.K @ Prutvi v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC15 Oct 2024CRL.A/1793/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal under Section 16 KPID Act against rejection of bail in a deposit-misappropriation case. The court found the accusations similar to an earlier crime where charge sheet was filed and statutory bail granted, held custodial interrogation unnecessary, set aside the Sessions Judge's order and granted bail with conditions.

What did the court decide?

Impugned bail-rejection order dated 19.09.2024 set aside; appellant granted bail on personal bond of Rs.2,00,000 with one surety, subject to conditions.

Shashikumar M.K @ Prutvi Vs State of Karnataka — Cheating and Forgery | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:41563 CRL.A No. 1793 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 15^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR

¶6

CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1793 OF 2024

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SHASHIKUMAR M.K @ PRUTVI S/O KUMAR B H AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS R/O MUKAHALLI CHAMARAJANAGAR TALUK CHAMARAJANAGAR - 571 313.

¶9

…APPELLANT

¶10

Digitally signed by HEMAVATHY GANGABYRAPPA

¶11

Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

(BY SRI SYED AKBAR PASHA, ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY CHAMARAJANAGAR TOWN POLICE REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BENGALURU – 560 001.

¶15

…RESPONDENT

¶16

(BY SRI B LAKSHMAN, HCGP)

¶17

THIS CRL.A IS FILED U/S 16 OF KPID ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSION JUDGE CHAMARAJANAGRA ORDER PASSED BAIL APPLICATION IN CR.No.90/2024 DATED 19.09.2024 WHICH IS PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-B AND FURTHER PLEASE TO GRANT REGULAR BAIL TO APPELLANT/ ACCUSED No.1 IN FIR No.90/2024 REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 417, 406, 409, 420, 468, 504, 506 R/W 34 OF IPC AND SECTION 9 OF KPID ACT REGISTERED BY THE RESPONDENT CHAMARAJANAGAR TOWN POLICE WHICH IS

¶18

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:41563 CRL.A No. 1793 of 2024

¶19

PENDING ON THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE CHAMARAJANAGAR AND ETC.,

¶20

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶21

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR

¶22

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶23

This appeal is filed by accused No.1 praying to set-aside the order dated 19.09.2024 passed in Crime No.90/2024 of Chamarajanagar Town Police Station registered for the offences punishable under Sections 417, 406, 409, 420, 468, 504 and 506 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 9 of the Karnataka

¶24

Protection Of Interest of Depositors in Financial Establishments Act, 2004 whereunder, the bail application of this appellant – accused No.1 came to be rejected.

¶25

Heard learned counsel for the appellant – accused No.1 and learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent – State.

¶26

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:41563 CRL.A No. 1793 of 2024

¶27

One Sri.Mahadevappa.S has given complaint stating that this appellant – accused No.1 asked him to open safe deposit account in Vishwaguru Multipurpose Co-operative Society stating that he will get good returns at 13.5% interest and accordingly the complainant deposited Rs.3,50,000/- on 16.03.2022 by cash and he has been given bond in that regard stating that he will get an amount of Rs.3,97,250/- with interest. On 16.03.2023, after maturity of the said deposit, he approached the appellant – accused No.1 over phone and the appellant – accused No.1 asked him to wait for three months. After three months,

¶28

the complainant came to know that the Society itself has been closed. He made efforts to get the money back, but he did not get the money. The appellant – accused No.1 who is the Manager of Vishwaguru Multipurpose Cooperative Society has mis-utilized the funds of the Society and transferred Rs.16,00,000/to his account and Rs.20,00,000/- to the account of his brother ie., accused No.2. The said complaint filed by Sri.Mahadevappa has been registered in Crime No.90/2024 by Chamarajanagar

¶29

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:41563 CRL.A No. 1793 of 2024

¶30

Town Police Station for the aforesaid offences. The appellant – accused No.1 has been secured under body warrant and he is in judicial custody. He filed bail application and the same came to be rejected by the impugned order which is challenged in this appeal.

¶31

Learned counsel for the appellant – accused No.1 would contend that earlier a case came to be registered against this appellant – accused No.1 and the other accused in Crime No.11/2024 of Chamarajanagar Town Police Station with the same accusations and in that, the appellant – accused No.1 has been granted statutory bail by order dated 01.08.2024. When he was about to be released after he furnishing the surety, another F.I.R came to be registered in Crime No.90/2024 to see that the appellant – accused No.1 should not be released on bail. He submits that the allegations in Crime No.11/2024 and the accusations in Crime No.90/2024 are similar, except the complainant is different. The statement of Sri.Mahadevappa was also recorded by the Investigating Officer in Crime

¶32

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:41563 CRL.A No. 1793 of 2024

¶33

No.11/2024. Charge sheet has also been filed in Crime No.11/2024. The appellant – accused No.1 is in judicial custody since 02.05.2024 in Crime No.11/2024 and he has been secured under body warrant in Crime No.90/2024. He submits that the appellant – accused No.1 and his younger brother – accused No.2 have availed housing loan and they have repaid the same by availing loan from I.D.F.C Bank and obtained N.O.C from the Society. As the investigation in the earlier case is over and the charge sheet is filed, the accusations in the present crime is also similar, the appellant – accused No.1 is not required for investigation. Without considering these aspects, the learned Sessions Judge has rejected the bail application. With this, he prayed to allow the appeal and grant bail to the appellant – accused No.1.

¶34

Per contra , learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1 – State would contend that this appellant – accused No.1 is the Manager of the said Vishwaguru Multipurpose Co-operative Society and he has mis-utilized

¶35

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:41563 CRL.A No. 1793 of 2024

¶36

the funds of the Society by transferring the amount to his account and to the account of his younger brother ie., accused No.2. The investigation is in progress and if the appellant – accused No.1 is granted bail, he will hamper the investigation and tamper the prosecution witnesses. With this, he prayed to dismiss the appeal.

¶37

Having heard the learned counsels, this Court has perused the impugned order and the other materials placed on record.

¶38

F.I.R in Crime No.11/2024 has been registered against this appellant – accused No.1 and the other accused and charge sheet has been filed in Crime No.11/2024 against this appellant – accused No.1 and accused No.2 who is his younger brother. On perusal of the accusation in the charge sheet Column No.17 in Crime No.11/2024, the accusation in both the crimes are similar except the complainant. The statement of the complainant Sri.Mahadevappa has also been recorded in Crime No.11/2024. The investigation in Crime No.11/2024 is

¶39

7 - NC: 2024:KHC:41563 CRL.A No. 1793 of 2024

¶40

completed and the charge sheet has been filed. In the voluntary statement of the appellant – accused No.1, he has stated that he has availed housing loan of Rs.16,00,000/- and his brother has availed housing loan of Rs.20,00,000/- and the same has been repaid and N.O.C has been issued in that regard. As investigation in Crime No.11/2024 is completed and as the major portion of the investigation in Crime No.90/2024 is over, this appellant – accused No.1 is not required for the custodial interrogation. Without considering all these aspects, the learned Sessions Judge has passed the impugned order which requires for interference by this Court. The appellant – accused No.1 has made out grounds for setting aside the impugned order and grant of bail. In the result, the following;

¶41

ORDER

¶42

The appeal is allowed . The impugned order dated 19.09.2024 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Chamarajanagar in Crime No.90/2024 registered by Chamarajanagar Town Police Station is set-aside.

¶43

¶44

NC: 2024:KHC:41563 CRL.A No. 1793 of 2024

¶45

Consequently, the appellant – accused No.1 is granted bail in Crime No.90/2024, subject to the following conditions:

¶46

(i) The appellant - accused No.1 shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/(Rupees two Lakh only) with one surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court.

¶47

(ii) The appellant – accused No.1 shall co-operate with the police in the investigation.

¶48

(iii) The appellant - accused No.1 shall not tamper with the prosecution witnesses, either directly or indirectly.

¶49

(iv) The appellant - accused No.1 shall appear before the jurisdictional Court on all the dates of hearing, unless exempted and co-operate in speedy disposal of the case.

¶50

Sd/(SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR) JUDGE

¶51

GH List No.: 1 Sl No.: 16

Shashikumar M.K @ Prutvi v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shashikumar M.K @ Prutvi 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

Girish. P Vs State of Karnataka by Chamarajanagar Town Police Station

The Executive Engineer Vs the Special Land Acquisition Officer

The Executive Engineer Vs Sri Siddappa Suraappa Surannavar

Smt Jayanthi Vs State by

Mr G Sunil Kumar Vs State of Karnataka

Suresh Vs State of Karnataka