IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF MAY 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S. SUNIL DUTT YADAV CRIMINAL PETITION No.3348/2019 Between:
1. Mohammed Shujayath, S/o Liyaquath Mohammed, Aged about 36 years, Residing at: No.740, 2nd ‘C’ Main, 8th Block, Koramangala, Bengaluru – 560 095, Authorised person for Asian Acero Industries.
2. Sumeer Ather Azad, S/o Ameer Azad, Aged about 36 years, Residing at: No.16, 11th Main, 5th Block, Jayanagara, Bengaluru – 560 041, Authorised person for Asian Acero Industries.
3. Syed Hafiz, S/o Syed Ameer, Aged about 56 years, Residing at: No.89, AST Cross, Deepanjali Nagara, Bengaluru – 560 026, Partner of Asian Acero Industries.
4. Syed Maz Sultan, S/o Syed Hafiz, Aged about 25 years, Residing at: No.89, AST Cross, Deepanjali Nagara, Bengaluru – 560 026, Partner of Asian Acero Industries.
5. Syed Maveez Rehman, S/o Syed Hafiz, Aged about 2 years, Residing at: No.89, AST Cross, Deepanjali Nagara, Bengaluru – 560 026, Partner of Asian Acero Industries. … Petitioners (By Sri G.S. Kannur, Senior Counsel for Sri K.G. Devarajaiah, Advocate) And:
State of Karnataka, By the S. H.O., Kadugodi Police Station, Bangalore, 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 the Cr.P.C., praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of their arrest in Cr. No.86/2019 of Kadugodi Police Station, Bangalore for the offences p/u/s 507, 504, 420 of IPC.
This Criminal Petition coming on for orders this day, the Court, made the following:
ORDER The petitioners have filed this petition seeking for being enlarged on bail in the event of their arrest by the respondent Kadugodi Police Station in Crime No.86/2019 for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 507, 504 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioners state that a contract has been entered into with the complainant as per the agreement dated 11.7.2018 with certain stipulations relating to supply of materials. The petitioners state that certain disputes have arisen with respect to the performance of obligation under the agreement.
3. The learned counsel for the impleading applicant submits that the agreement has been entered into on behalf of the entity by the persons who are not authorized to represent the said entity and it is further submitted that the document produced at page 34 which is a Board Resolution dated 8.1.2018 has been created for the purpose of overcoming the allegations that the petitioners/accused Nos. 1 and 2 were not authorized to represent the firm M/s. Asian Acero Industries. It is further submitted that the said Board Resolution was not placed before the Sessions Court wherein the application of the petitioners seeking granting of anticipatory bail came to be rejected. It is also submitted by the impleading applicant that the custodial interrogation is required.
4. Learned High Court Government Pleader states that investigation is not complete and that further documents are required which the accused have to produce and that the custodial interrogation is required. It is further stated that certain seizure of goods may have to be made in the process of investigation.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the impleading applicant and the learned High Court Government Pleader.
6. It is to be noted that the scope of the proceedings under Section 438 Cr.P.C. are to be dealt with keeping in mind the principle of law as laid down by the apex Court in the case of Shri Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia and others Vs. State of Punjab [(1980) 2 SCC 565].
7. It is also to be noticed that the dispute relates to power of accused Nos.1 and 2 to represent the partnership firm - M/s. Asian Acero Industries. While it is contended by the impleading applicant that the agreement entered into on 11.7.2018 by accused Nos.1 and 2 representing the partnership firm was illegal as they were not authorised to represent the said firm. However it is to be noticed that the affairs of the M/s. Asian Acero Industries are internal matters. Further taking note of the fact that the offences sought to be made out prima facie appear to be an effort to settle their civil dispute and enforce obligations under the contract.
The petitioners state that they are willing to be subjected to any condition to ensure their cooperation in the investigation. The contention of the petitioner is that in light of their standing in the society the question of entertaining any apprehension regarding the petitioner’s absconding does not arise.
8. Looking in to the nature of the allegations made, the present case prima facie does not warrant custodial interrogation. The rights and obligation flow from the document dated 11-7-2018 as well as other documents including the alleged resolution 8-1-2018. In lights of dispute stemming from business transactions relating to interpretation of contract without expressing nay conclusive opinion on the merits of the case it is appropriate at this stage to provide the benefit of doubt in favor of the accused. The impleading applicant relies on judgment of Crl Petition No. 200547 of 2017. However in the facts of the above referred case the accused had created a false account in connivance of staff of an financial institution in the name of Annad Rati Shares and Stock Brokers Limited and had diverted funds. The facts of the said case may have justifiably warranted custodial interrogation. Principle laid down in the facts of the above case cannot be applied in the present case. However, the petitioners would be required to cooperate with the investigation and hence conditions are being imposed.
It is noticed that the sessions court has rejected the application filed by the petitioners.
9. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The petitioners to be enlarged on bail in the event of their arrest in Crime No.86/2019 of the respondent – Police relating to the offences punishable under sec 507, 504 and 420 of the IPC subject to the following conditions:
(a) Each of the petitioners shall appear in person before the Investigating Officer in connection with Crime No.86/2019 within 10 days from receipt of this order and shall execute a personal bond for a sum of `1,00,000/- (Rupees one Lakh only) each, with a surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer.
(b) The petitioners shall fully co-operate with the Investigating Officer and shall not indulge in any criminal activities henceforth.
(c) The petitioners shall not tamper with evidence, influence in any way, any witness or hamper directly or indirectly, the investigation.
(d) The petitioners shall physically present themselves and mark their attendance before the concerned Station House Officer once a week between 10.00 a.m. and 5.00 p.m. till filing of the final report.
(e) Any violation of the aforementioned conditions by the petitioner, howsoever minor, shall result in automatic cancellation of bail.
The application filed by the proposed respondent under sec 301(2) of the Cr P C to assist the prosecutor is allowed. In light of the same the question of considering I.A. 1 of 19 doesnot arise. Further the learned High Court Government Pleader has reiterated the contentions of the learned counsel for the impleading applicant.
Accordingly, no orders are passed on I.A. for impleading. It is made clear that the observations made herein are not to be construed to be conclusive findings and are made in the context of present proceedings.
Sd/- JUDGE RS/*