IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18th DAY OF MARCH, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE B.A.PATIL CRIMINAL PETITION No.5199/2018 BETWEEN:
Mr. K. Shivakumar s/o Mr. Venkatesh aged about 30 years Occ: tailor, door no. 6307 5th Division, APMC building Chitradurga town Chitradurga-577 501 ... Petitioner (By Sri. K. Shashikanth Prasad, Advocate) And:
The State of Karnataka by Chitradurga Town Police Station Chitradurga- 577 501 Represented by State Public Prosecutor High Court of Karnataka Bengaluru-560 001 ... Respondent (By Smt. Namitha Mahesh B.G., HCGP) This Criminal Petition is filed u/s.438 Cr.P.C. praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest in Crime No.385/2015 of Chitradurga Town Police Station, Chitradurga District for the offences punishable under Sections 406,420 and 120B r/w Section 34 of IPC.
This Criminal Petition coming on for Orders, this day the Court made the following:-
O R D E R The present petition has been filed by the petitioner/ accused No.43 under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. to release him on anticipatory bail in Crime No.385/2015 of Chitradurga Town Police Station, for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 120B r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
2. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State.
3. The gist of the complaint is that on 1.9.2015 a complaint was registered alleging that while examining the gold loan in 141 accounts it is noticed that a fake gold found and one Mr.J.Ravikumar who has been appointed as an appraiser of the bank has given a false certificate that pledged gold are original one and thereby cheated an amount of Rs.2,85,61,290/-. On the basis of the complaint, a case has been registered and after investigation charge sheet has been filed.
4. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner/accused is nothing to do with the alleged offence. He has been falsely implicated in the case. He further submitted that the name of the petitioner is not found in the FIR or in the complaint. He further submitted that the accused pledged the gold articles only on the basis of appraising certificate issued by Ravikumar. He further submitted that it is the Manager and the said Ravikumar and others have involved in the alleged crime and the accused has been made as scapegoat. The alleged offences are not punishable with death or imprisonment for life. He further submitted that the remaining accused persons are already released on bail. On the ground of parity, he is also entitled to be released on anticipatory bail. He is ready to abide by the conditions imposed by this Court and ready to offer the sureties. On these grounds he prayed to allow the petition and to release the petitioner on anticipatory bail.
5. Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader vehemently argued and submitted that the petitioner is absconding since 1.9.2015 and the Court below has issued the Non-Bailable Warrant and proclamation and now the petitioner/accused is a proclaimed offender and as such he is not entitled to be released on bail. She further submitted that if the petitioner/accused is released on anticipatory bail, he may abscond and he may not be available for the trial. On these grounds, she prayed to dismiss the petition.
6. I have carefully and cautiously gone through the contents of the complaint and the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the records.
7. On close reading of contents of the complaint it is alleged that in 141 account fake gold was found and it is one Sri.J.Ravikumar has given the certificate of appraising the said gold articles to pledge the same in the bank. Without certification of the said Sri.J.Ravikumar the bank ought not have accepted the said fake gold as original gold and ought not to have released the amount. The gold has been pledged after issuing appraising certificate by Sri.J.Ravikumar and the Manager and even though the petitioner/accused is also involved in the alleged offence, it is the matter which has to be considered at the time of trial. When already the other accused persons have been released on bail and the alleged offences are not punishable with death or imprisonment for life, then there is no impediment to release the petitioner/accused on anticipatory bail. Though it is contended by the learned High Court Government Pleader that the petitioner/accused is a proclaimed offender, no records have been produced to show that the proclamation proceedings have been concluded and he has been declared as proclaimed offender as held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Pradeep Sharma reported in (2014)2 SCC 171.
8. Under the above said facts and circumstances, I feel that if by imposing some stringent conditions, if the petitioner/accused is ordered to be released on bail, it is going to meet the ends of justice.
9. In the light of the discussions held by me above, the petition is allowed and petitioner/accused No.43 is ordered to be released on anticipatory bail in Crime No.385/2015 of Chitradurga Town Police Station, for the offences punishable under Sections, 406, 420 120B r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code, subject to the following conditions:
i) The petitioner shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only) with two sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer or the trial Court.
ii) He shall surrender before the Investigating Officer or the trial Court within 15 days from today.
iii) He shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence directly or indirectly.
iv) He shall not indulged in similar type of criminal activities.
v) He shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Court without prior permission.
vi) He shall be regular in attending the trial.
Sd/- JUDGE *AP/-