Mahantesh Vs the State of Karnataka — Cheating and Forgery | Karnataka HC (2025)

Mahantesh Vs the State of Karnataka — Cheating and Forgery | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None; the prayer to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail was rejected.

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner has made out a case for grant of anticipatory bail and whether the Court should exercise its discretion in favour of the petitioner in the facts and circumstances of the case.

Court's answer

The allegations, on their face, indicate inducement and deception leading to delivery of money.

Ratio / Principle

The petitioner's contention that the amount was a hand loan and that part repayment has been made is a matter requiring investigation and cannot be conclusively examined in proceedings under Section 438 Cr.P.C.

Key takeaways

Considering the seriousness of the allegations, the increasing instances of exploiting unemployed and vulnerable aspirants under the guise of securing public employment, and the fact that the money was transferred through bank accounts, custodial interrogation may be necessary for effective investigation.ratio¶52
Grant of anticipatory bail in such circumstances would impede the investigation and may send a wrong signal to society; the petitioner has failed to make out a case for exercise of discretion in his favour; the point for consideration is answered in the negative and the petition is liable to be dismissed.ratio¶53

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Anticipatory bail - refusal. Criminal Petition under S.438 Cr.P.C. (old)/S.482 BNSS (new) by accused No.2 seeking bail in the event of arrest in Crime No.233/2025 of Basavana Bagewadi Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 IPC, pending before the Civil Judge and JMFC, Basavana Bagewadi. Allegation: the petitioner, in collusion with the co-accused, induced the complainant - an aspirant to the post of Commercial Tax Inspector who had not been shortlisted - to part with Rs.11,00,000/- through bank transactions on the assurance of securing the post. Held: (i) the allegations on their face indicate inducement and deception leading to delivery of money; (ii) the petitioner's plea that the amount was a hand loan with part repayment is a matter requiring investigation and cannot be conclusively examined in proceedings under Section 438 Cr.P.C.; (iii) given the seriousness of the allegations, the increasing instances of exploiting unemployed and vulnerable aspirants under the guise of securing public employment, and the money having moved through bank accounts, custodial interrogation may be necessary for effective investigation; (iv) grant of anticipatory bail would impede the investigation and may send a wrong signal to society. Point answered in the negative; petition dismissed.

1 -

NC: 2025:KHC-K:7630 CRL.P No. 201621 of 2025

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

KALABURAGI BENCH

DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.201621 OF 2025

(438(Cr.PC)/482(BNSS))

BETWEEN:

MAHANTESH S/O SHANKRAPPA PUJARI, AGE: 41 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O B. BAGEWADI, TQ. BASAVANA BAGEWADI, DIST. VIJAYAPUR-586203.

…PETITIONER

(BY SRI R. B. CHAWAN, ADVOCATE)

AND:

Digitally signed by AL BHAGYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, BASAVANA BAGEWADI PS, DIST. VIJAYAPUR-586203, REPRESENTED BY ADDL. STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH-585102.

MUTTAPPA S/O SAYABANNA BANGARI, AGE: 27 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, R/O HIREMASALI, TQ. INDI, DIST. VIJAYAPURA-586215.

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI JAMADAR SHAHABUDDIN, HCGP FOR R1; NOTICE TO R2 IS SERVED)

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 438 OF CR.P.C (OLD), UNDER SECTION 482 OF BNSS (NEW),

2 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:7630 CRL.P No. 201621 of 2025

HC-KAR

PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS PETITION AND ENLARGE THE PRESENT PETITIONER ON BAIL IN THE EVENT OF HIS ARREST AT THE HANDS OF BASAVANA BAGEWADI POLICE STATION IN CRIME NO.233/2025 FOR OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 406 AND 420 OF IPC, WHICH IS PENDING BEFORE THE CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, AT BASAVANA BAGEWADI.

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

ORAL ORDER

The captioned petition is filed by accused No.2 seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.233/2025 registered by Basavana Bagewadi Police Station for the offence punishable under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, pending before the Civil Judge and JMFC Court, Basavana Bagewadi.

The prosecution case, in brief, is that the complainant, who was aspiring to secure appointment to the post of Commercial Tax Inspector, having realised that his name was not shortlisted, approached the present petitioner and another accused. It is alleged that the accused persons assured the complainant that they would

3 -

NC: 2025:KHC-K:7630 CRL.P No. 201621 of 2025

HC-KAR

manage to secure the said post and, on such assurance,

induced him to part with a sum of Rs.11,00,000/-, which was paid through bank transactions. The complainant alleges that despite receiving the said amount, the accused failed to secure the job and thereby cheated him. According to the complainant, the accused, despite knowing fully well that they had no capacity or authority to secure such appointment, intentionally induced him to part with the money. On these allegations, the complaint came to be lodged for the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner,

reiterating the grounds urged in the petition, vehemently contended that the transaction in question was purely a hand loan and not a payment made for securing employment. It is submitted that a portion of the amount has already been repaid and, when the remaining amount was demanded, the complainant has falsely lodged the present complaint, converting a civil dispute arising out of

4 -

NC: 2025:KHC-K:7630 CRL.P No. 201621 of 2025

HC-KAR

a loan transaction into a criminal case of cheating. It is further submitted that the petitioner is innocent and is apprehending arrest pursuant to the registration of the crime, and therefore seeks protection under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader opposed the petition contending that the material on record prima facie discloses that the petitioner, along with the co-accused, had hatched a plan to cheat the complainant. It is submitted that the intention to deceive was present from the inception, that a substantial amount has been collected under the pretext of securing a government job, and that the investigation is still in progress. Hence, it is argued that this is not a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail.

Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the point that arises for consideration is:

5 -

NC: 2025:KHC-K:7630 CRL.P No. 201621 of 2025

HC-KAR

“ Whether the petitioner has made out a case for

grant of anticipatory bail and whether this Court should exercise its discretion in favour of the petitioner in the facts and circumstances of the case?”

As noticed supra, the gisrt of the accusation is that the petitioner, in collusion with the co-accused, induced the complainant to part with a substantial sum of Rs.11,00,000/on the assurance of securing a government job to the post of Commercial Tax Inspector, even after the complainant was not shortlisted in the selection process. The allegations, on their face, indicate inducement and deception leading to delivery of money. At

this stage, the contention of the petitioner that the amount was a hand loan and that part repayment has been made is a matter requiring investigation and cannot be conclusively examined in proceedings under Section 438 Cr.P.C. Considering the seriousness of the allegations, the increasing instances of exploiting unemployed and

6 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:7630 CRL.P No. 201621 of 2025

HC-KAR

vulnerable aspirants under the guise of securing public employment, and the fact that the money was transferred through bank accounts, this Court is of the view that custodial interrogation may be necessary for effective investigation.

Grant of anticipatory bail in such circumstances would not only impede the investigation but may also send a wrong signal to society. Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner has failed to make out a case for exercise of discretion in his favour. Accordingly, the point for consideration is answered in the negative, and the petition is liable to be dismissed.

ORDER

The petition is dismissed .

Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE

RSP

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 6 CT:SI