Gaurav Shyamlal Mehrotra S/O Shyamlal Vs State of Karnataka

GAURAV SHYAMLAL MEHROTRA S/O. SHYAMLAL, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, R/A: E/1202, ACROPOLICE, CHIKMAL DONGRI/HDIL LAYOUT, GLOBAL CITY, VIRAR (WEST), PALGHAR, MAHARASHTRA-401303.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. SYED IRSHAD AHMED, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by SREEDHARAN BANGALORE SUSHMA LAKSHMI Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶14

STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY KARATAGI POLICE STATION, GANGAVATI, KOPPAL DISTRICT, REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BENCH AT DHARWAD, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH.

¶15

(BY SRI. PRAVEEN Y.DEVAREDDI, HCGP)

¶16

…RESPONDENT

¶17

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 438 OF CR.P.C. (482 OF BNSS), PRAYING TO, DIRECT THE RESPONDENT POLICE TO ENLARGE HIM ON BAIL IN CR. NO.173/2023 OF KARATAGI POLICE STATION, GANGAVATI, KOPPAL DISTRICT, WHICH IS NOW NUMBERED AS C.C.NO.3478/2024, FOR OFFENSES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 120B, 489(A), 489(B), 420 R/W SECTION 149 OF THE INDIAN PENAL CODE, PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT GANGAVATI, IN THE EVENT OF HIS ARREST, IN THE ABOVE CASE, TO MEET THE ENDS OF JUSTICE.

¶18

2 -

¶19

NC: 2025:KHC-D:14995 CRL.P No. 104097 of 2025

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶22

ORAL ORDER

¶23

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.RACHAIAH)

¶24

The petitioner who is arrayed as accused No.4 is before this Court seeking regular bail in Crime No.173/2023 of respondent/Police for the offence punishable under Sections 120-B, 489-A, 489-B and 420 r/w. Section 149 of Indian Penal Code, 1860¹ .

¶25

Factual matrix of the case ;

¶26

It is the case of the prosecution that, the

¶27

complainant being a Manager of ICICI Bank, lodges a complaint stating that on 04.09.2023, Veeresh-accused No.1 produced two Demand Drafts of Rs.1 Crore each. The said Demand Drafts were given by accused Nos.2 and 3. The complainant after verifying those Demand Drafts, credited the amount to the account of accused No.1.

¶28

1 For short ’IPC’

¶29

3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:14995 CRL.P No. 104097 of 2025

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

The accused No.1 had deposited Rs.10 lakhs to

¶32

one of his Bank accounts and Rs.20 lakhs was credited to his another account. Again the accused No.1 transferred Rs.1,70,00,000/- to another account at Suko Bank situated at Sindhanoor. Further, the accused No.1 had paid Rs.20 lakhs each to accused Nos.2 and 3. After coming to know that, the said Demand Drafts were fake, complaint was lodged before the respondent/Police. The respondent/Police have registered a case in Crime No.173/2023 for the offence stated supra .

¶33

Heard Sri.Syed Irshad Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. Praveen Y. Devaraddiyavara, learned High Court Government Pleader for

¶34

respondent/State.

¶35

It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that, the petitioner is arrayed as accused No.4. The overt-act attributed against him is that, accused No.1 had transferred a sum of Rs.20 Lakhs to his account and the said account was being maintained by accused No.6.

¶36

4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:14995 CRL.P No. 104097 of 2025

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

Except making such allegations, no other overt-act is attributed against the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner may be enlarged on bail by imposing suitable conditions. Moreover, the charge-sheet has been submitted in this case. Making such submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner prays to allow the petition.

¶39

Per contra , the learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent/State vehemently submitted that, in furtherance of common intention, accused Nos.1 to 6 have created and fabricated the fake Demand Drafts for a sum of Rs.2 Crores with an intention to deceive the Bank as the huge public money is involved in this scam, it is not appropriate to grant him bail. Making such submissions, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent/State prays to reject the petition.

¶40

Having heard the learned counsel for the

¶41

respective parties and on perusal of the averments of the charge-sheet, the allegations against the petitioner is that accused No.1 had transferred the amount of Rs.20 Lakhs to

¶42

NC: 2025:KHC-D:14995 CRL.P No. 104097 of 2025

¶43

5 -

¶44

HC-KAR

¶45

the account of the petitioner. Having considered the facts

¶46

and circumstances of the case and also overt-act of the petitioner, it is appropriate to grant him bail.

¶47

Hence, I proceed to pass the following;

¶48

ORDER

¶49

i) The Criminal Petition is allowed .

¶50

ii) The petitioner is ordered to be enlarged on bail in Crime No.173/2023 of respondent/Police on executing personal bond for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- [Rupees Two Lakhs only] with 2 local sureties for likesum to the satisfaction of the Trial Court, subject to the following conditions;

¶51

a) The petitioner shall not involve in similar or in any other criminal cases till disposal of the present case. b) The petitioner shall not threaten the prosecution witnesses.

¶52

6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:14995 CRL.P No. 104097 of 2025

¶53

HC-KAR

¶54

c) The petitioner shall appear before

¶55

the Trial Court on all hearing dates without fail and he shall not hamper the proceedings of the Court.

¶56

In case, if the petitioner violates any of the conditions enumerated above, the liberty is reserved to the prosecution to file necessary application for

¶57

cancellation of bail.

¶58

Sd/(S.RACHAIAH) JUDGE

¶59

PJ/CT: UMD List No.: 2 Sl No.: 9

Gaurav Shyamlal Mehrotra S/O Shyamlal v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gaurav Shyamlal Mehrotra S/O Shyamlal v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Yusuf Bilal Shaik Vs the State of Karnataka

Vaseem Alias Waseem S/O Abdul Khadar Mulla Vs the State of Karnataka

Vaseem Alias Waseem S/O Abdul Khadar Mulla Vs the State of Karnataka

Mujammil Mainuddin Sattigeri Vs the State of Karnataka

Hanumantha S/O Malleshappa Shivalingappa Savalagi Vs the State of Karnataka

Manjunath S/O Maruti Vs State of Karnataka