Petitioners, borrowers accused of pledging fake ornaments to secure gold loans from Canara Bank, sought anticipatory bail in a Section 420 IPC case. The court found the allegations serious and prima-facie cheating made out, and dismissed the petition.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
NC: 2024:KHC:36687 CRL.P No. 8744 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 8744 OF 2024
BETWEEN:
Digitally signed by SWAPNA V Location: high court of karnataka
BOTH ARE R/A THINDLU VILLAGE, KUNDANA HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 562 110
…PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. SRIKANTH N.V., ADVOCATE)
AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY DEVANAHALLI POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING BANGALORE - 560 001
…RESPONDENT
(BY SMT. ASMA KOUSER, ADDL.S.P.P.)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.438 CR.P.C (U/S 482 BNSS) PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS PETITION AND ENLARGE THE PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NO. 6 AND 7 ON ANTICIPATORY BAIL U/S 438 OF CR.P.C., IN CONNECTION WITH IN CR.NO.24/2024
NC: 2024:KHC:36687 CRL.P No. 8744 of 2024
REGISTERED BY DEVANAHALLI P.S., ON THE FILE OF CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, DEVANAHALLI, FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 420 OF IPC.
THIS CRL.P, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA
ORAL ORDER
The petitioners-accused Nos.6 and 7 are before this Court seeking grant of anticipatory bail in Crime No.24/2024 of Devanahalli Police Station, pending on the file of the learned Civil Judge and JMFC., Devanahalli, registered for the offences punishable under Section 420 of Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC'), on the basis of the first information lodged by the informant Krishna Kumar.
“Whether the petitioners are entitled for grant of bail under Section 438 of Cr.P.C.?”
My answer to the above point is in ‘negative’ for the
following:
R E A S O N S
NC: 2024:KHC:36687 CRL.P No. 8744 of 2024
6. Leaned counsel for the petitioners contended that
accused Nos.4 and 5 against whom similar allegations are made are already granted anticipatory bail. Even though order granting anticipatory bail in favour of accused No.4 is produced before this Court, learned Sessions Judge has not assigned any reason except saying that accused No.5 is granted anticipatory bail. Therefore, accused No.4 is not entitled for such bail. It is pertinent to note that the order granting anticipatory bail to accused No.5 is not produced before this Court. Looking to the nature and seriousness of the offence, I am of the opinion that the petitioners are not entitled for grant of anticipatory bail.
negative and proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
The petition is dismissed.
Sd/(M G UMA) JUDGE
BH
List No.: 3 Sl No.: 15
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petitioners, accused Nos.6 and 7 in a gold-loan cheating case, are entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Mahesh T.S.
Rathnamma
State of Karnataka, by Devanahalli Police Station
M G Uma
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
