Judgments
Judgments
  1. Home
  2. /
  3. High Court Of Karnataka
  4. /
  5. 2019
  6. /
  7. January

Harjeet Chandok @ Harjeet Singh Chandok And Others vs The State Of Karnataka

High Court Of Karnataka|03 May, 2019
|

JUDGMENT / ORDER

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF MAY 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL CRIMINAL PETITION NO.522 OF 2019 BETWEEN:
1. Harjeet Chandok @ Harjeet Singh Chandok, Aged about 39 years, S/o Jagdev Singh, Residing at: Ganesh Nagar, Tilak Nagar S.O., West Delhi, Delhi – 110 018.
2. Baladev Negi, Aged about 54 years, S/o late Sobhan Negi, Residing at #154C, Pocket B, Mayur Vihar, Phase II, Patparganj, East Delhi, Delhi – 110 091.
3. Nawal @ Nawal Kumar, Aged about 37 years, S/o Biharilal, Residing at 290, Block – NJJ Colony, Raghubir Nagar, West Delhi, Delhi – 110 027.
4. Naresh, Aged about 46 years, S/o Ramachander, Residing at S-146/64, Adarsh Basti, Mohammad P South West Delhi, Delhi – 110 066.
…Petitioners (By Sri. Satyanrayana Chalke S., Advocate) AND:
The State of Karnataka, By Station House Officer, Marathalli Police Station, Represented by its State Public Prosecutor, High Court of Karnataka Building, Bengaluru – 560 001.
..Respondent (By Sri. Divakar Maddur M, HCGP) This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. praying to enlarge the petitioners on bail in the event of their arrest in Cr.No.689/2018 registered by Marathahalli Police Station, Bengaluru for the offence punishable under Sections 419 and 420 read with Section 34 of IPC.
This Criminal petition coming on for Orders, this day, the Court made the following:
ORDER Petitioners are accused Nos.3 to 6 in Crime No.689/2018 of Marathahalli Sub Division. The said case is registered against the petitioners and two others under Sections 419 and 420 read with Section 34 of IPC on the basis of complaint of one Sri. Srinivas R.
2. It is alleged that the petitioners in guise of the hire purchasers purchased Innova Car bearing No. KA 03 AC 4548 on 23.10.2017 for the complainant. It is further alleged that the petitioners collected 26 equal monthly installments in all amounting to `7,03,000/- and assured that they will get the vehicle transferred in the name of the complainant after clearance of loan, but did not do so. It is further alleged that the petitioners’ company was shifted without any intimation. On enquiry, complainant allegedly came to know that Toyota Financial Bank was the actual financers, the accused have not remitted the installment amount collected by the said Bank and cheated him.
3. Sri. Satyanarayana Chalke S., learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioner No.1 retired from the post of the Director on 01.04.2014 and the other petitioners are not the office bearers of the Company at all. He further submits that the Sessions Court has rejected the bail application on the sole ground that the petitioners have not produced the address proof of their native place.
4. Per contra, learned HCGP appearing for the State opposes the petition on the ground that the petitioners are not the natives of Karnataka and the case is still at investigation stage.
5. The major offence alleged carries punishment of imprisonment upto seven years. The incriminating materials are already seized. Accused No.1 has been granted bail by the trial Court. The petitioners are natives of some other State itself is not a ground to reject the bail application.
6. Under the circumstances, it is a fit case to grant anticipatory bail with suitable conditions. Petition is allowed.
7. Petitioners are granted anticipatory bail in Crime No.689/2018 of Marathahalli Police Station. If they are arrested in the said case, they shall be released on bail subject to the following conditions:
(i) They shall appear before the Investigating Officer within ten days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
(ii) They shall execute personal bond in a sum of ` 1,00,000/- and furnish two local sureties in the likesum to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer/Court for their appearance.
(iii) They shall appear before the Investigating Officer/Court as and when required for the purpose of investigation/trial.
(iv) They shall not tamper the prosecution witnesses by threats, inducement or otherwise.
(v) They shall mark their attendance before Investigating Officer on first Sunday of each English Calendar month till the completion of the investigation.
Sd/- JUDGE Mds/-
Disclaimer: Above Judgment displayed here are taken straight from the court; Vakilsearch has no ownership interest in, reservation over, or other connection to them.
Title

Harjeet Chandok @ Harjeet Singh Chandok And Others vs The State Of Karnataka

Court

High Court Of Karnataka

JudgmentDate
03 May, 2019
Judges
  • K S Mudagal