Allowed

Sri Krishnegowda P K v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC4 Jun 2024CRL.P/3421/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court fixed a Criminal Petition for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. issued by accused No.2 in a private complaint case for cheating and forgery. The court held that the petitioner need not be subjected to interrogation for the time being and granted anticipatory bail subject to standard conditions.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner is ordered to be enlarged on bail subject to furnishing a bond of Rs.2,00,000/- with two sureties and appearing before the Investigating Officer within 15 days.

Sri Krishnegowda P K Vs State of Karnataka — Cheating and Forgery | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:19000 CRL.P No. 3421 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 4^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 3421 OF 2024

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI. KRISHNEGOWDA .P.K., SRI. KRISHNEGOWDA .P.K., SON OF LATE KEMPEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS RESIDING AT PADUGUDI VILLAGE, C.S. PURA HOBLI, GUBBI TALUK, TUMAKURU DISTRICT, PIN CODE - 572 213

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

Digitally signed by BHARATHI S Location: high court of karnataka

¶11

(BY SRI. PUNITH .C., ADVOCATE) AND:

¶12

STATE OF KARNATAKA C.S. PURA POLICE GUBBI TLAUK TUMAKURU DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDING BANGALORE - 560 001

¶13

SRI. JEEVAN PRAKASH, SON OF CHIKARANGAIAH AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, RESIDING AT KAMBASANDRA VILLAGE, C.S. PURA HOBLI, GUBBI TALUK, TUMAKURU DISTRICT, PIN CODE - 572 213

¶14

…RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. WAHEEDHA .M.M., HCGP FOR RESP - 1. SRI. H.V. MANJUNATHA, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶15

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.89/2020 OF CHANDRASHEKAPURA P.S., TUMAKURU FOR THE

¶16

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:19000 CRL.P No. 3421 of 2024

¶17

OFFENCE P/U/S.420, 465, 468, 471 OF IPC REGISTERED IN C.C.NO.4115/2023 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE LEARNED ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC GUBBI OF RESPONDENT C.S.PURA POLICE STATION.

¶18

THIS CRL.P, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

ORDER

¶20

The petitioner-accused No.2 is before this Court seeking grant of anticipatory bail in Crime No. 89/2020 of Chanrashekarpura Police Station, pending on the file of the learned Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Gubbi, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 465, 468, 471 of Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC'), on the basis of the first information lodged by the informant - Jeevan Prakash.

¶21

Heard Sri. Punith C, learned counsel for the petitioner, Smt. Waheedha M.M, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent No.1-State and Sri. H.V. Manjunatha, learned counsel for respondent No.2. Perused the materials on record.

¶22

In view of the rival contentions urged by the learned counsel for both the parties, the point that would arise for my consideration is:

¶23

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:19000 CRL.P No. 3421 of 2024

¶24

“Whether the petitioner is entitled for grant of bail under Section 438 of Cr.P.C.?”

¶25

My answer to the above point is in ‘Affirmative’ for the following:

¶26

R E A S O N S

¶27

Petitioner being accused No.2 is before this Court seeking grant of anticipatory bail as there is apprehension of being arrested. Respondent No.2 herein as complainant filed private complaint against accused Nos.1 and 2. It is stated that the complainant is the owner of JCB, which was lent to accused No.2. He used it for about 12022 hours and was due of an amount of Rs. 7,00,000/- (Rupees Seven Lakhs Only). Out of which, the accused has paid Rs.3,00,000/-(Rupees Three Lakhs Only) and the balance amount of about Rs.4,00,000/- (Rupees Four Lakhs Only) was not paid. Therefore, a private complaint came to be filed. The police have filed B-report. Looking to the nature of the allegations, I do not find any reason to hold that the petitioner is required for interrogation. Reasonable conditions may be imposed while granting anticipatory bail to enable the petitioner to appear before the Trial Court. Hence, I

¶28

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:19000 CRL.P No. 3421 of 2024

¶29

am of the opinion that the petitioner may be granted anticipatory bail subject to conditions, which will take care of the apprehensions expressed by the learned High Court Government Pleader that the petitioner may abscond or may tamper or threaten the prosecution witnesses.

¶30

Accordingly, I answer the above point in the

¶31

affirmative and proceed to pass the following:

¶32

ORDER

¶33

The petition is allowed.

¶34

The petitioner is ordered to be enlarged on bail in the event of his/her arrest in Crime No.89/2020 of Chanrashekarpura Police Station.

¶35

The petitioner is directed to appear before the Investigating Officer within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order and on his/her appearance, the Investigating Officer shall enlarge him/her on bail subject to the following conditions:-

¶36

a. The petitioner shall furnish the bond in a sum

¶37

of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only)

¶38

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:19000 CRL.P No. 3421 of 2024

¶39

with two sureties for the likesum to the

¶40

satisfaction of the Investigating Officer;

¶41

b. The petitioner shall not commit similar offences;

¶42

c. The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer or the court as and when required; and

¶43

d. The petitioner shall not threaten or tamper the prosecution witnesses.

¶44

On furnishing the sureties by the petitioner, the Investigating Officer is at liberty to verify the correctness of the address and authenticity of the documents furnished by him. On satisfaction of the said documents, he may proceed to accept the sureties within a reasonable time.

¶45

Sd/JUDGE

¶46

SPV

¶47

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 32

Sri Krishnegowda P K v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Krishnegowda P K 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

Sunita D N Vs State by

Venkataramanappa Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. Arunkumar @ Thyape Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Prakasha T S Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. Shaik Rahil @ Shakil Baig Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. Syed Akbar Pasha Vs the State of Karnataka