Allowed

Sanjith C v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC4 Mar 2024CRL.P/196/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Two accused sought anticipatory bail for allegedly pledging gold-coated ornaments to a bank to obtain loans. The court noted the complaint failed to explain who appraised and certified the gold at sanction stage, suggesting possible bank official involvement. Finding no impediment, the court granted anticipatory bail with conditions.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail on personal bond of Rs.1,00,000 each with one surety, subject to surrender within 15 days, attendance conditions, and non-tampering undertakings.

Sanjith C Vs State of Karnataka — Banking and Recovery | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

NC: 2024:KHC:8855 CRL.P No. 196 of 2024

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 4^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA BADAMIKAR

¶7

CRIMINAL PETITION No. 196 OF 2024 (438)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SANJITH C., S/O MR. CHANDRA SHEKAR AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, R/O MAIN ROAD, SEEKE ,MUDUGUNI BALEHONNUR, N.R PURA TALUK CHIKKAMGALURU DISTRICT-577112

¶10

B R ARUN KUMAR S/O MR. RAMA KRISHNA AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, RESIDENT OF PAVITHRA NAGARA, MALLENAHALLI, CHICKMAGALUR DISTRICT-577131

¶11

Digitally signed by SOWMYA D Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶12

(BY SRI. HARISH KUMAR M. C., ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

…PETITIONERS

¶15

STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY BALEHONNUR POLICE CHICKAMAGALUR DISTRICT, THROUGH THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560001.

¶16

…RESPONDENT

¶17

(BY SRI. B. LAKSHMANA, HCGP)

¶18

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:8855 CRL.P No. 196 of 2024

¶19

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.135/2023 OF BALEHONNUR P.S., CHIKKAMAGALURU FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S.420 R/W SEC.34 OF IPC. THE I ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, CHIKKAMAGALURU HAS DISMISSED THE BAIL PETITION ON 20.12.2023 IN CRL.MISC.NO.866/2023.

¶20

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

¶21

ORDER

¶22

This petition is filed by the petitioners under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. seeking for anticipatory bail in the event of their arrest in Crime No.135/2023 of Balehonnur Nagar Police Station, Chikkamagaluru registered for the offences punishable under Section 420 r/w Section 34 of IPC.

¶23

The brief factual matrix of the prosecution case are that on 21.10.2023 the petitioner No.1 has opened savings bank account in Union Bank of India, Balehonnur and availed loan of Rs.3,67,000/- (Three Lakhs Sixty Seven Thousand only) from Bank by pledging the gold items of 86.70 grams. It is further alleged that on 25.10.2023, he again availed loan of Rs.5,80,000/- (Five Lakhs Eighty Thousand Only) by pledging gold items of

¶24

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:8855 CRL.P No. 196 of 2024

¶25

131 grams. It is further the case of the prosecution that on 06.11.2023, the petitioner No.1 got introduced petitioner No.2 to the said Bank and got opened savings bank account in the name of petitioner No.2 and petitioner No.2 availed loan of Rs. 4,88,000/- (Four Lakh Eighty Eight Thousand only) by pledging gold of 114 grams. As per the case of the prosecution, on 13.11.2023, when a Nodal Officer Mr. Veeranna, from the Regional Office at Shivamogga had visited the Bank and instructed to conduct re-valuation of the pledged gold ornaments and appraiser Mr. Santhosh Acharya was asked to revaluate the Gold ornaments and it is noticed that the petitioners are said to have pledged the gold plated ornaments to the Bank. Hence, complaint was lodged by the Manager of Union Bank of India, Balehonnur Branch and on the basis of complaint, crime came to be registered. The petitioners apprehending their arrest approached the learned Sessions Judge and learned Sessions Judge has rejected the bail petition. Hence, the petitioners are before this Court.

¶26

¶27

NC: 2024:KHC:8855 CRL.P No. 196 of 2024

¶28

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and

¶29

learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent – State and perused the records.

¶30

The allegation of the prosecution discloses that on 21.10.2023 and 25.10.2023 petitioner No.1 has pledged gold coated ornaments and availed loan amount of Rs.3,67,000/- and Rs.5,80,000/- respectively, It is also alleged that subsequently, he introduced petitioner No.2 on 06.11.2023. Petitioner No.2 opened savings bank account and availed loan amount of Rs.4,88,000/- by pledging 114 grams of gold coated ornaments. As per the case of the prosecution, on 13.11.2023, when the gold coated ornaments were recognized, the complaint came to be lodged. At the outset, it is evident from the records that initial loans were obtained on 21.10.2023, 25.10.2023 and 06.11.2023. While advancing the loan, the concerned Bank Manager or relevant officials of the Bank should have got tested the gold through the Bank certified appraiser and without getting it tested they cannot sanction the

¶31

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:8855 CRL.P No. 196 of 2024

¶32

gold loan. In the instance case, there is no evidence as to what was the initial certification made by the Goldsmith

¶33

regarding the pledged golden ornaments. The entire complaint is silent in this regard. The complaint allegations simply discloses that on 13.11.2023, the golden ornaments were re-apprised and they were found to be

¶34

gold coated and not gold ornaments. But who has appraised the gold ornaments at the time of sanctioning of the loan is not at all explained and whether they were certified to be gold ornaments or whether they were not at all certified or Bank officials subsequently played mischief is required to be tested. The allegations of the complaint disclose that Bank officials simply pointing the fingers against the petitioners but they were not making any allegations regarding the concerned officials of the Bank, who sanctioned the loan or the appraiser, who appraised the gold at the time of sanctioning the loan. Hence, it is evident that all is not well and the investigating officer is required to investigate the role of the earlier Goldsmith, who certified it to be gold ornaments or whether Bank

¶35

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:8855 CRL.P No. 196 of 2024

¶36

officials have played any mischief or otherwise. Considering these facts and circumstances and considering the fact that certain materials particulars are not stated in the complaint, it is evident that the Bank officials intend to screen some of the Bank officials. Further the offences are not punishable with death or life imprisonment. Considering these facts, I do not find any impediment for admitting the petitioners/accused on anticipatory bail. The other apprehensions raised by the learned High Court Government Pleader can be met by imposing certain conditions, the petition needs to be allowed and accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:

¶37

ORDER

¶38

The petition is allowed .

¶39

The petitioners/Accused Nos.1 and 2 are ordered to be enlarged on anticipatory bail in the event of their arrest in Crime No.135/2023 of Balehonnur Police Station, Chikkamagaluru City, registered for the offences punishable under Section 420 read with 34 of IPC on executing a personal bond in a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one Lakh

¶40

¶41

NC: 2024:KHC:8855 CRL.P No. 196 of 2024

¶42

only) each with one surety for the like-sum to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer or the concerned trial Court, subject to following conditions:-

¶43

i) Petitioners shall surrender themselves before the Investigating Officer within fifteen days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order and in the event of surrender, Investigating Officer/SHO shall release them on bail as directed.

¶44

(ii) They shall not directly or indirectly tamper with any of the prosecution witnesses.

¶45

(iii) They shall not indulge in any similar offences.

¶46

(iv) They shall make themselves available to the Investigating Officer for interrogation whenever called for during course of investigation.

¶47

(v) They shall mark their attendance before the Investigating Officer/SHO between 9.00 a.m. and 5.00 p.m. on every first

¶48

8 - NC: 2024:KHC:8855 CRL.P No. 196 of 2024

¶49

and third Saturday of the month till the final report is submitted.

¶50

Sd/JUDGE

¶51

AG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 42

Sanjith C v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanjith C 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

Sri Ravikumar Vs State of Karnataka

Hanumanthe Gowda Vs the State by

Tejas @ Teju Vs State of Karnataka

Srisyla Vs State of Karnataka

Sunil Kumar Vs State of Karnataka

Kuppusamy Vs State by Madivala Police