IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23rd DAY OF JANUARY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE Mr. JUSTICE B.A.PATIL CRIMINAL PETITION No.9100 OF 2018 BETWEEN:
B.L.Keshava Kumar, S/o.B.V.Lakshminarayana, Aged about 41 years, R/at No.422, Ward No.1, Vapasandra, Chikkaballapura Town-562 101. …Petitioner (By Sri.Arun Kumar.Y.H, Advocate) AND:
The State of Karnataka, Through Police, Chikkaballapura Town Police Station, Represented by State Public Prosecutor, High Court, Bengaluru-560 001. …Respondent (By Sri.K.P.Yoganna, HCGP) This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest in Cr.No.79/2018 registered by Chikkaballapura Town Police Station, Chikkaballapura for the offence p/u/s 420 of IPC.
This Criminal Petition coming on for Orders, this day, the Court made the following:-
ORDER The present petition has been filed by the petitioner to release him on anticipatory bail in Crime No.79/2018 of Chikkaballapura town Police Station for the offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Govt. Pleader.
3. The gist of the complaint is that complainant has taken a Money Plus policy in the name of his sons and he has paid the premiums. During 2012, complainant’s uncle’s son visited his house and took the LIC bond from the complainant under the guise of enquiry and did not return the same. On 13.12.2016, when the complainant asked to return the LIC bond for the purpose of his children’s education, he told that he had already returned the same. When the complainant approached the concerned officials of LIC, he came to know that the accused had taken sums of Rs.32,128/- and Rs.31,290/- by surrendering the policy bond. On the basis of the said facts, complaint was registered in Crime No.79/2018.
4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that a false complaint has been registered only with an intention to take revenge against the accused. He further submitted that in the event of surrendering the policy, the LIC will issue only ‘Account Payee’ cheque in the name of the holder of Policy or the guardian. It is submitted that even though the complainant claims that he knew the said fact on 13.12.2016, he has filed a complaint on 21.03.2018. There is an ordinate delay in filing the complaint. He further submitted that in the event of his release on bail, he is ready to abide by any conditions that may be imposed on him and he is ready to offer sureties.
5. Learned High Court Govt. Pleader submits that there is a prima facie material against the accused and the investigation is under progress and the Investigating officer has to secure the documents and material from the LIC office. If the petitioner is enlarged on bail, he may tamper with the prosecution evidence.
6. I have carefully gone through the material on record.
7. As could be seen from the records, though a complaint is filed during 2018, the complaint itself discloses that when the complainant asked the accused to return the policy on 13.12.2016, the accused told that the policy bonds are already returned to him. When he ascertained from the LIC office, then only he came to know about surrendering of the policy and drawing of the amount. Taking into consideration the submission of learned High Court Govt. Pleader, as the documents are with the LIC office, there is no question of tampering the same. The alleged offences are not punishable with death or imprisonment for life. In that light, petitioner is released on anticipatory bail.
8. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and in the event of his arrest, the petitioner is ordered to be released on anticipatory bail in Crime No. Cr.No.79/2018 registered by Chikkaballapura Town Police Station, Chikkaballapura for the offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC subject to following conditions:
i) The petitioner shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with two sureties to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer;
ii) He shall surrender before the Investigating Officer within fifteen days from today;
iii) He shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence directly or indirectly;
iv) He shall mark his attendance once in fifteen days between 10.00 a.m., and 5.00 p.m., till the chargesheet is filed.
Sd/- JUDGE bnv*