Partly allowed

Kalmesh Y Agasimani v. State of Karnataka by Psi

Karnataka HC4 Jul 2024CRL.P/5713/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka granted anticipatory bail to the wife of one accused but dismissed the prayer for the other two accused (President and Manager of a cooperative society) involved in charges of cheating, criminal breach of trust, and intimidation in a criminal complaint.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner No.2 granted anticipatory bail on furnishing a bond of Rs. 2,00,000/- with two sureties and appearing before the Investigating Officer within 15 days; Petitioners No.1 and 3 denied bail.

Kalmesh Y Agasimani Vs State of Karnataka by Psi — Cheating and Forgery | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:25231 CRL.P No. 5713 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 4^TH DAY OF JULY, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 5713 OF 2024

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

KALMESH Y AGASIMANI S/O YALLAPPA, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, BUSINESS, R/O NO-417/56 NEAR VIDYANIKETHANA SCHOOL, JAYANAGARA A BLOCK DAVANAGERE - 577 001

¶9

Digitally signed by NANDINI B G Location: high court of karnataka

¶10

SMT SARASWATHI W/O KAMLESH Y AGASIMANI AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS ACCOUNTANT, R/O NO 417/56 NEAR VIDYANIKETHANA SCHOOL, JAYANAGARA A BLOCK DAVANAGERE - 577 001

¶11

SRI MANJUNATH NAIK S/O LAKSHMANA NAIK AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS MANAGER, R/AT NO.259, TULASI NILAYA, NEAR RAILWAY GATE, TOLAHUNASE VILLAGE DAVANAGERE - 577 006

¶12

…PETITIONERS

¶13

(BY SRI. HIREMATHAD MAHESHIAH RUDRAYYA, ADVOCATE)

¶14

AND:

¶15

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY PSI, VIDHYANAGARA POLICE STATION, DAVANAGERE - 577 002

¶16

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:25231 CRL.P No. 5713 of 2024

¶17

REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDINGS, BENGALURU - 560 001

¶18

…RESPONDENT

¶19

(BY SRI. RAHUL RAI .K., HCGP)

¶20

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.438 CR.P.C PRAYING TO GRANT ANTICIPATORY BAIL TO THE PETITIONERS IN THE EVENT OF ARREST OF THEM FROM THE RESPONDENT VIDHYANAGARA POLICE, DAVANAGERE IN CR.NO.72/2024 ON THE FILE OF PRL. I ADDITIONAL (JR.DN.) AND J.M.F.C., DAVANAGERE FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 420, 406, 504, 506 R/W 34 OF IPC.

¶21

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

¶22

ORDER

¶23

The petitioners-accused Nos.1 to 3 are before this Court seeking grant of anticipatory bail in Crime No.72/2024 of Vidyanagar Police Station, pending on the file of the learned I Additional Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) and JMFC, Court registered for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 406, 504, 506 R/w Section 34 of Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC'), on the basis of the first information lodged by the informant Mallikarnuna C.

¶24

Heard Sri. Hiremathad Maheshiah Rudrayya, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri.Rahul Rai.K, learned

¶25

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:25231 CRL.P No. 5713 of 2024

¶26

High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State. Perused the materials on record.

¶27

In view of the rival contentions urged by the

¶28

learned counsel for both the parties, the point that would arise for my consideration is:

¶29

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

¶30

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

¶31

R E A S O N S

¶32

Petitioners being accused Nos.1 to 3 are seeking grant of anticipatory bail on the apprehension of being arrested. The informant lodged the first information against accused Nos.1 to 3 for the above said offences.

¶33

It is stated that accused Nos.1 and 3 have induced the informant to deposit the amount promising to repay with interest. Accordingly, the informant deposited the amount. But the petitioners have not repaid the amount inspite of repeated

¶34

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:25231 CRL.P No. 5713 of 2024

¶35

demands. On the other hand, they committed cheating, criminal breach of trust and also intimidated the informant.

¶36

It is stated that petitioner No.1 is the President, Petitioner No.3 is the Manager of the Cooperative Society. Petitioner No.2 is the wife of petitioner No.1 and she is not holding any position in the Cooperative Society. Even though it is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that no scrap of paper is produced by the informant to show that he has deposited any amount in the co operative society and even though there was search in the house of the petitioners, nothing incriminating was recovered, learned High Court Government Pleader has produced the copy of the deposit receipt standing in the name of the informant, issued by the co operative society and signed by accused No.3. Considering all these facts and circumstances, I am of the opinion that petitioner Nos.1 and 3 being accused Nos.1 and 3 who are President and the Manager of the co-operative society are required for interrogation and not entitled for grant of anticipatory bail. However, petitioner No.2 being accused No.2 is the wife of petitioner No.1 is not having any designation in the cooperative society, is entitled for grant of anticipatory bail

¶37

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:25231 CRL.P No. 5713 of 2024

¶38

subject to conditions, which will take care of the interest of the prosecution.

¶39

Accordingly, I answer the above point partly in the affirmative and proceed to pass the following:

¶40

ORDER

¶41

The petition is partly allowed.

¶42

The petition filed by petitioner Nos.1 and 3-Accused Nos.1 and 3 is dismissed .

¶43

The petition filed by petitioner No.2-accused No.2 is allowed .

¶44

Petitioner No.2 is ordered to be enlarged on bail in the event of her arrest in Crime No.72/2024 of Vidyanagar Police Station.

¶45

The petitioner No.2 is directed to appear before the Investigating Officer within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order and on her appearance, the Investigating Officer shall enlarge her on bail subject to the following conditions:-

¶46

a. The petitioner No.2 shall furnish the bond in a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs

¶47

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:25231 CRL.P No. 5713 of 2024

¶48

only) with two sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer;

¶49

b. The petitioner No.2 shall not commit similar offences;

¶50

c. The petitioner No.2 shall appear before the Investigating Officer or the court as and when required; and

¶51

d. The petitioner No.2 shall not threaten or tamper the prosecution witnesses.

¶52

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 her. On satisfaction of the said documents, he may proceed to accept the sureties within a reasonable time.

¶53

Sd/JUDGE

¶54

¶55

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 27

Kalmesh Y Agasimani v. State of Karnataka by Psi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kalmesh Y Agasimani v. State of Karnataka by Psi

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

Dharshan S/O Late Venkatesha Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Mariyappa @ Marappa S/O Gurupad Vs State of Karnataka by

Vishvanath Vs State of Karnataka

Dhurgappa Bhramappa Tamirikoppa Vs State of Karnataka by

Rahul. R Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Keshava Murthy Vs the State of Karnataka