IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF MARCH, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE B.A. PATIL CRIMINAL PETITION NO.639/2019 BETWEEN:
Punniyamoorthy @ Radhakrishna Nadar, Son of Subalya, Aged about 55 years, Residing at No.57 B, Siththi Vinayagar Colony, Siruvani Main Road, Tamilnadu-641041. ...Petitioner (By Sri Mohan Bhat, Advocate) AND:
The State of Karnataka, By Station House Officer, Lashkar Police Station, Mysuru-570001, Represented by State Public Prosecutor, High Court Building, Bengaluru, Bengaluru-560001.
(By Sri M.Divakar Maddur, HCGP) ... 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.16/2018 (C.C.No.1855/2018) of Lashkar Police Station, Mysore City for the offence P/U/S 420, 464, 465, 468, 471 R/w 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.4 under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. praying this Court to release him on anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest in Crime No.16/2018 of Lashkar Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 464, 465, 468 and 471 read with Section 34 of IPC.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent-State.
3. The brief allegations in the complaint are that Sri S.M.Ananda was in need of funds and his friend Balasubramanya Bhat brought to his notice an advertisement in ‘The Hindu’ dated 11.08.2017 that the advertiser would secure loans from private sources for applicants. On the basis of the said advertisement, the complainant and the said Balasubramanya Bhat went and met accused No.4, who telephoned to the complainant’s friend and asked him to come to meet him in Coimbatore. Accordingly the complainant and his friend went to Coimbatore on 04.02.2018 where they met accused No.4 who took them to his office and introduced them to accused No.3. Accused No.2 was also present and he wanted to inspect the business premises of the complainant and accordingly, accused Nos.4 and 5 came from Chennai and visited the industrial site of the complainant on 11.02.2018.
4. On 25.02.2018 the complainant was again called to the Hotel Lalit Ashok, Bengaluru at 7.00 p.m. and accused No.4, accused No.2 and another person were present at that time. Representation was made to the complainant that they will arrange loan of Rs.50 Crores for the complainant but they had to pay advance of Rs.50 lakhs towards other processing charges, out of which Rs.25 lakhs should be paid through bank account of Rs.25 lakhs by cash.
5. Accordingly, on 07.03.2018 the complainant had transferred Rs.25 lakhs from his bank account to the account of accused No.5, who is the employee of accused No.2. On 08.03.2018 at 11.00 a.m., the complainant and his two friends went to J.P.Fortune Hotel, Mysuru. Accused Nos.2 and 4 were present and they received cash of Rs.25 lakhs from the complainant and also took his signature to various loan applications and handed over a Bag saying that, it contains Rs.50 lakhs and to open it only after getting the phone call from them, thereafter they went away by taking cash of Rs.25 lakhs from the complainant. Since the accused persons did not get the phone call from the complainant and opened the said bag, they found it contained only 5 notes of Rs.2,000/- each and remaining blank papers tied together to resemble currency bundles. On the basis of the said complaint, a case has been registered.
6. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that all the accused persons have already been released on bail and only on the basis of voluntary statement of the accused/petitioner has been implicated falsely in this case. He further submitted that accused Nos.6 and 7 created the documents and the accused/petitioner is not in picture and no prima- facie case has been made out as against the petitioner/accused. He further submitted that investigation has also been completed and chargesheet has been filed. The accused/petitioner is ready to abide by any conditions that may be imposed on him by this Court and ready to offer surety. On these grounds, he prayed to allow the petition and to release the petitioner/accused on bail.
7. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader vehemently argued and submitted that accused No.3/petitioner is conspired with few other accused person and cheated the complainant of the huge amount. He is the kingpin on the entire case and instigated the other accused person for opening the fake account and thereafter they colluded deceived the complainant. The accused/petitioner is absconding and is involved in many more case thereafter it is submitted that if the accused/petitioner is released on bail, he may abscond and may not be available for Investigation or Interrogation. On these grounds, he prayed to dismiss the petition.
8. I have carefully and cautiously gone through the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the records.
9. On perusing the contents of the complaint and the other materials, it indicate that accused No.3/petitioner is also involved in the alleged crime and he introduced the complainant to the other accused person and thereafter the complainant had been made believe that he would get loan of Rs.50 lakhs and creating fake notes and portraying if the bag contains bundles of notes handed over to the petitioner that this is a serious allegation. Though it is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the remaining accused persons have been released on bail and on the ground of parity petitioner be enlarged on bail, when serious allegations have been made of deceiving huge amount, under such circumstances it is not a fit case to exercise discretion under Section of 438 Cr.P.C. On the said facts and circumstances, the petition is dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE rv