IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF JULY, 2017 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE RATHNAKALA CRIMINAL PETITION NO.3696 OF 2017 Between:
Mr.Prasanna Karunakar Shetty, S/o Shetty KarunakarA, Aged about 47 years, R/a B-504, ECO Elegance Hill Top, Marol Church Road, Andheri Kurla Road, Andheri (E), Mumbai – 400 159.
(By Sri.N.S.Hiremath, Advocate) And:
The State, Represented by City Crime Police Station, Mangaluru City, By State Public Prosecutor, High Court of Karnataka, Bengalruru – 560 001.
(By Sri.Chetan Desai, 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.1/2017 of City Crime Police Station, Central, Mangalore City for the offence punishable under Section 465, 468, 406, 420, 327, 143, 147, 323, 504, 506 read with Section 149 of IPC.
This Criminal Petition coming on for Orders this day, the Court made the following:
ORDER Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent.
2. The petitioner apprehends arrest by the respondent-police in Crime No.1/2017 in respect of the offences punishable under Sections 465, 468, 406,420, 327, 143, 147, 323, 504, 506 and 149 of IPC.
3. Petitioner is arrayed as accused No.2 in the FIR. The allegation is, the first accused who is into building construction and development business, approached the complainant and represented that he has purchased immovable properties and on his request, the complainant agreed to purchase a part of the said property and to develop another part and paid a sum of Rs.6.75 crores. Subsequently it came to light that the first petitioner has not entered into any sort of agreement with the original land lord of the property. Despite several demands neither he has transferred the land nor returned the amount. On 06.01.2017 when the complainant went to the office of the first accused, he abused him and his manager filthily and threatened him of dire consequence. The persons present over there manhandled complainant and his manager etc.
4. As per the submission at the Bar, this petitioner on the alleged date of the incident i.e., on 06.01.2017, was in Chinese Embassy at Mumbai. The contract between first accused and the complainant is of the year 2006 and the dispute between them is civil in nature. If anticipatory bail is granted, petitioner will appear before the Investigation Officer and convince him of his innocence.
5. In the light of the above, petition is allowed.
Petitioner is granted anticipatory bail in Crime No.1/2017 registered by the respondent-Police, subject to following conditions:
(i) He shall forthwith appear before the Investigating Officer.
(ii) In the event of his arrest by the respondent- Investigating Officer in respect of the above case, he shall be released on bail by executing a self bond for a sum of Rs.1 lakh with one surety for the likesum.
DN/LL Sd/- JUDGE