IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K.N.PHANEENDRA CRIMINAL PETITION No.3681 OF 2019 BETWEEN:
Smt. Nagarathnamma W/o Yogananda Murthy, Aged about 42 years, Residing at No.23, Patel Kempaiah Layout, Chokkasandra, T.Dasarahalli, Near Maruthi Temple, Bengaluru-560 058.
(By Sri. N.D.Lakshmipathy, Advocate) AND:
State by Halsur Gate Police Station, Represented by the State Public Prosecutor, Bengaluru-560 001.
(By Sri. Honnappa, HCGP) …Petitioner …Respondent This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of her arrest in Cr.No.38/2019 registered by Halasurgate Police Station, Bengaluru for the offence punishable under Section 419 and 420 of IPC.
This Criminal Petition coming on for Orders this day, the Court made the following:
O R D E R Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned HCGP for the respondent-State. Perused the records.
2. Petitioner has arraigned as accused No.2 in Crime No.38/2019 of Halasurgate Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 419 and 420 of IPC.
3. The brief facts of the case are that, a complaint has been lodged by an Advocate by name V.S.Panduranga of Bangalore City, stating that the present petitioner is also practicing Advocate and she has been running a chit business and collected several lakhs of rupees from Advocate colleagues and her husband also pretended to be an Advocate, whereas, he was not an Advocate and not completed law graduation. Knowing fully about her husband, petitioner has supported her husband to practice as fake Advocate. Therefore, she has cheated the public at large as well as various persons from whom she has taken money for chit business. Except the above said allegations, there are no materials placed along with the complaint on record to show that she has been running chit business. Whether her husband was working as Advocate or not has to be verified and an appropriate action has to be taken against that particular person. The petitioner being a lady and allegations are not exclusively punishable either with death or imprisonment for life and she is practicing as an advocate, there is no apprehension that she might abscond from the clutches of law. Hence, in my opinion, by imposing stringent conditions, the petitioner is entitled to be enlarged on bail. Hence, the following ORDER The petition is allowed. Consequently, the petitioner shall be released on bail in the event of her arrest in connection with Crime No.38 of 2019 of Halasurgate Police Station, subject to the following conditions:-
i) The petitioner shall surrender herself before the Investigating Officer within Ten days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order and she shall execute personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- 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 she shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when called for.
iv) The petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of Bengaluru District without prior permission of the Court, till the charge sheet is filed or for a period of three months whichever is earlier.
Sd/- JUDGE SB