IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE BUDIHAL R.B.
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.6774/2017 BETWEEN:
Sri Basheer Ahmed, S/o Baba Bhai, Aged about 42 years, Residing at No.17/1, Bowee Street, Halasur, Bengaluru- 560 008 ...Petitioner (By Sri. Mohandas Rao T, Advocate) AND:
The State of Karnataka, By the Police of S.J.Park, Police Station, Bengaluru-560 001 …Respondent (By Sri. Chetan Desai, HCGP) 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 Cr.No.48/2012 of S.J.Park police station, Bengaluru City, which is registered for the offence P/U/S 120B, 420, 465, 471 of IPC.
This Criminal Petition is coming on for orders this day, the Court made the following:
ORDER This is the petition filed by the petitioner/accused No.3 under section 438 of Cr.P.C. seeking anticipatory bail directing the respondent police to release accused No.3 in the event of his arrest for the alleged offences punishable under sections 120B, 420, 465, 471 of IPC registered in crime No. 48/2012.
2. Brief facts of the prosecution case is that accused No.1 was running the business in the name and style ‘M/s. Tradex Metal Corporation’, a proprietorship concern. It had availed certain financial facility from the State Bank of India, Jayanagar II Block Branch, Bangalore for the improvement of his business in trading iron and steel metal sheets, plates and M.S. Sections against the execution of loan documents on 08.02.2011. One Smt. Salma, W/o Sri. Abdul Majeed Zafrulla, the second accused named in the case stood as guarantor to the loan availed. The further case of the prosecution is that the petitioner herein, the 3rd accused as a further security deposited the title deeds pertaining to his site property bearing No.8, situated at Nagawara Village, Kasaba Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk with an intent to create equitable mortgage in favour of the said bank. The borrower become the defaulter and the property mortgaged was acquired by the Bangalore Development Authority much earlier for the prosecution. Thereby, the borrower and the guarantor have cheated the complainant-Bank and thereby filed the petition.
3. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and also learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent- State.
4. I have perused the grounds urged in the bail petition, FIR, complaint and the other materials produced in the case. Prosecution material goes to show that the property of the present petitioner herein was acquired by the Bangalore Development Authority much before to the loan transaction to accused No.1 with the said bank. In spite of that, the present petitioner stood as guarantor to the mortgage, as the property is favourable to the security for the said loan. Though it is the contention of the petitioner herein that he was not knowing the acquisition proceedings, the prima facie materials goes to show that it was acquired prior to the transaction. Therefore, the materials prima facie goes to show the involvement of accused No.3 in committing the alleged offences. As per the prosecution case, the loan amount involved more than 1 Crore 10 lakhs, and considering these aspects of the matter, it is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail at this stage. Hence, the petition is hereby rejected.
At this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioner/accused No.3 submitted that the petitioner is prepared to surrender before the concerned Court.
In case if he surrenders, he can move a fresh application for his release on regular bail before the concerned Court. The concerned Court shall consider the application on priority basis and to dispose of the same as early as possible on merits and if possible on the same day.
Sd/- JUDGE BVK