IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2017 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE BUDIHAL R.B.
CRIMINAL PETITION No.9210/2017 BETWEEN:
SMT.SHASHIKALA W/O LATE ASHWATHAIAH AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS R/AT NO.14/A, 5TH CROSS, SARASWATHIPURAM, NANDINI LAYOUT, BENGALURU-560047 ... PETITIONER (BY SRI SUNIL KUMAR S., ADV. FOR SRI CHANDRASHEKAR R.P., ADV.) AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA BY PEENYA P.S., REP. BY LD. STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT COMPLEX, AT BANGALORE-01 ...RESPONDENT (BY SRI CHETAN DESAI, HCGP.) THIS CRL.P. FILED UNDER SECTION 438 CR.P.C. PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN THE EVENT OF HER ARREST IN CRIME NO.641/2017 OF PEENYA POLICE STATION, BENGALURU CITY FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 420, 34 OF IPC.
THIS CRL.P. COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R This petition is filed by the petitioner/accused No. 1 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 her arrest for the offences punishable under Sections 34, 420 of IPC registered in respondent police station Crime No.641/2017.
2. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/accused No.1 and also the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State.
3. I have perused the averments made in the bail petition, FIR, complaint and other materials placed on record.
4. Complaint is lodged by one Smt.Gangamma, w/o Ramesh Nayak. The complaint averments show that there was chit business in between the complainant and petitioner/accused No.1 and others. Petitioner/accused No.1 collected the chit amount, but ultimately the accused and another have not paid the chit money to the complainant and other 50 members. The petitioner denied the allegations made in the complaint and contended that there is false implication. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that according to the complaint averments, the offence alleged to have taken place in the year 2016, whereas the complaint is filed in 2017. There is no explanation for the delay of more than one year. He has also submitted that the transaction between the complainant and petitioner/accused No.1 appears to be contractual in nature and complainant and others are at liberty to take civil action and recover the amount.
5. Looking to the materials, the alleged offenses are triable by the Magistrate Court. Hence, it is a fit case to exercise the discretion in favour of the petitioner/accused No1.
6. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The respondent-Police is directed to enlarge the present petitioner-Accused No. 1 on bail in the event of her arrest for the alleged offence, subject to the following conditions:
i. Petitioner to execute a personal bond for Rs.50,000/- and to furnish one solvent surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the concerned Court.
ii. Petitioner shall not tamper with any of the prosecution witnesses, directly or indirectly.
iii. Petitioner have to make herself available before the Investigating Officer for interrogation, as and when called for.
iv. The petitioner have to appear before the concerned Court within 30 days from the date of this order and to execute the personal bond and the surety bond.
Sd/- JUDGE ln.