IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF DECEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE K.N.PHANEENDRA CRIMINAL PETITION No.5829/2019 BETWEEN:
ANAND ACHPAL AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, S/O PRAKASH JETHANAND, R/AT KRISHAN DWELLINGTON, DEVINAGAR MAIN ROAD, RMV 2ND STAGE, BENGALURU – 560 094. … PETITIONER (BY SRI G.H. LOHITH KUMAR, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY RAJARAJESHWARINAGAR POLICE, REPT, BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU – 560 001.
2. UMESH KUMAR N.
S/O B.N GOPAL KRISHNAMURTHY AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, R/AT NO.13, S.VC. SHAROFF BAZAAR, KURNOOL TALUK AND DISTRICT, ANDRAPRADESH – 518 001.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI ROHITH B.J., HCGP. FOR R-1) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 438 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE, PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN THE EVENT OF HIS ARREST IN CR.NO.112/2019 OF RAJARAJESHWARI NAGAR POLICE STATION, BENGALURU CITY FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 506, 406, 420 R/W SECTION 34 OF IPC.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader for the 1st respondent – State. Perused the records.
2. Petitioner is arraigned as accused No.2 in Crime No.112/2019 registered by the Rajarajeshwari Nagar Police Station for the offence under Sections 506, 406, 420 read with 34 IPC.
3. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant by name N.Umesh Kumar is a Goldsmith and a merchant in bullion trade. He is said to have been introduced to Mrs.Preethi Sunil by Mr.Anand in the year 2014. Accused No.1- Mrs.Preethi Sunil who is said to be the wife of one Sunil Kumar Thakker - accused No.4, a businessman of Delhi had assured the complainant of supplying gold and silver at lesser rate than prevailing in the market as she was dealing with multiple commodities in Trade exchange. Later accused No.1 is said to have induced the complainant to invest more money in MCX trading so that he would get more income from the said investment. The complainant agreed for the same and in the year 2004 on five occasions, he has given gold and cash, in turn, accused No.1 issued cheques for the amount invested by the complainant in order to gain confidence. He has given details as to how much he has invested money in the said business as per the request of the accused No.1 and her husband. Her assurance of returns on the investments is said to have been breached and the cheques given by her were also bounced.
4. The allegation against this petitioner is that he was working as an employee under accused No.1 and he was acting as per the directions of accused No.1. Documents produced before the Court also shows that this petitioner was working as an employee for salary under accused No.1. Therefore, there is no allegation with regard to direct involvement of this petitioner in respect of the said crime. The main allegations are against the accused Nos.1 and 4. As such, in my opinion, the petitioner is entitled to be enlarged on bail at this stage. It is also to be noted that similarly placed accused by name Saravana Kumar has approached this Court for grant of bail and this Court vide order dated 24.09.2019 in Criminal Petition No.6103/2019 enlarged him on bail on conditions. Even on the ground of parity also, this petitioner is entitled to be enlarged on anticipatory bail. Hence, the following:
ORDER The petition is allowed. Consequently, the petitioner shall be released on bail in the event of his arrest in connection with the Crime No.112/2019 of Rajarajeshwari Nagar police station, Bengaluru for the offence punishable under Sections 506, 406 and 420 read with Section 34 of IPC subject to the following conditions:-
i) The petitioner shall surrender himself before the Investigating Officer within ten days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order and shall execute personal bond for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Only) with one surety for the like-sum to the satisfaction of the concerned Investigating Officer.
ii) The petitioner shall not indulge in hampering the investigation or tampering the prosecution witnesses.
iii) The petitioner shall co-operate with the Investigating Officer to complete the investigation, and he shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when called for.
iv) The petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Investigating Officer without prior permission, till the charge sheet is filed or for a period of three months whichever is earlier.
v) The petitioner shall mark his attendance once in fifteen days i.e., on any Sunday between 10.00 am and 5.00 pm., before the Investigating Officer for a period of two months or till the charge sheet is filed, whichever is earlier.
Sd/-
JUDGE PKS