IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2017 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE BUDIHAL R.B.
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.6601/2017 BETWEEN:
NITEESH BALDA, S/O. AMBALAL JAIN, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, R/O. H.TOWER, NO.402, SNOWDROP BLOCK, ETA STAR GARDEN, MAGADI ROAD, BENGALURU-560 026.
(BY SRI.M V HIREMATH, ADV.) AND STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY HALASURU GATE POLICE STATION, BENGALURU, NOW REPTD. BY SPP HIGH COURT BUILDING, BENGALURU-560 001.
(BY SRI.K.NAGESHWARAPPA, 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 HIS ARREST IN CRIME NO.184/2017 OF HALASURGATE POLICE STATION, BENGALURU CITY, WHICH IS REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 120B, 468, 465, 471, 420, R/W 34 OF IPC.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER This petition is filed by the petitioner/accused No.4 under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. seeking anticipatory bail, to direct the respondent-police to release the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest for the offences punishable under Sections 120B, 468, 465, 471, 420 read with Section 34 of IPC registered in respondent police station Crime No.184/2017.
2. Brief facts of the prosecution case is that one Sudarshan N., filed the complaint on 29.06.2017, wherein he has stated that the bank sanctioned loan of Rs.1.00 Crore on 31.03.2016 by executing a loan documents and for creation of mortgage on the property offered as security. Believing that the said documents are true and genuine, the loan was credited to the account of accused No.1. Accused No.1 withdrew the loan amount on various dates. During the course of regular internal audit inspection of the Branch, various discrepancies were found in the documents submitted for loan purpose, the audited balance sheet given by M/s.C.B.Devappa & Co., statement of account of M/s.Maa Ashapur Enterprises issued by IDBI Bank, Rajajinagar Branch, Bengaluru, it was found that information are not tallying with the account statement submitted by the borrower at the time of availing credit facility. Therefore, the documents produced for availing loan facility are fabricated. The complainant approached the borrower regarding such fabrication, the borrower and guarantor gave evasive reply and on enquiry accused No.1 had fabricated the documents in collusion with accused No.4, who is consultant of the borrower (accused No.1), accused No.2 and 3 (Guarantor) and accused No.5, Ex-Manager of City Market Branch. On the basis of the said complaint, case came to be registered for said offences.
3. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/accused No.4 and also the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner during the course of his arguments has submitted that petitioner is totally unconnected with the alleged offence. He is working as a Consultant in M/s.Maa Ashapur Enterprises which is run by accused Nos.1 and 2. Even looking to the contents of the complaint and other materials placed by the prosecution, there is no prima- facie case made out by the prosecution and the allegations are against accused Nos.1 and 2. Hence, he submitted that by imposing reasonable conditions, petitioner may be admitted to anticipatory bail.
5. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader, during the course of his arguments has submitted that, looking to the complaint averments and also the other materials, there is a prima-facie case even against the petitioner, who is consultant of the said firm, and as the returns filed on behalf of the said firm i.e., M/s.Maa Ashapur for the year 2013-14, 2014-15 and on the basis of such documents, credit facility of Rs.1.00 crore was obtained from the bank and after conducting the internal audit by the bank it was transpired that the documents are not genuine. He also submitted that the petitioner is absconding, not available to the Investigating Officer for conducting investigation in the matter. It is also submitted that investigation is not yet completed. Hence, he submits that petitioner is not entitled for anticipatory bail.
6. I have perused the grounds urged in the bail petition, FIR, complaint and also the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge rejecting the bail application of the petitioner, so also, the other materials placed on record.
7. Looking to the complaint averments it is also mentioned by the complainant that the petitioner is working as a Consultant for accused Nos.1 and 2 and in the complaint there are allegations even against the petitioner that he was involved in creating false documents for the purpose of obtaining the credit facility of Rs.1.00 Crore. Therefore, at this stage it cannot be said that there is no material placed as against the petitioner. Apart from that, serious allegations are made regarding misappropriation of Rs.1.00 Crore obtained by producing the fake documents. Therefore, the matter requires serious consideration and custodial interrogation of the petitioner is also necessary in the case. Looking to the nature and gravity of the offences, I am of the opinion that it is not a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail. Hence, petition is hereby rejected.
Sd/- JUDGE BSR