IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF DECEMBER, 2019 BEFORE:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.N.PHANEENDRA CRIMINAL PETITION NO.7889/2019 BETWEEN:
SRI. GIRIDHAR NADONI, S/O YALLAPPA, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, OCC: ASSISTANT LIBRAIYAN, R/AT NO.437, 8TH CROSS, 2ND PHASE, BDA LAYOUT, JNANABHARATHI POST, BANGALORE-560 056. ... PETITIONER [BY SRI. ANAND R.V., ADVOCATE] AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY JNANABHARATHI POLICE STATION, BANGALORE, REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ATTACHED TO HIGH COURT BUILDING, BANGALORE-01. ... RESPONDENT [BY SRI. HONNAPPA, 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.174/2018 REGISTERED BY JNANABHARATHI POLICE STATION, BENGALURU FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 406, 420 AND 354-D 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 HCGP for the respondent/State. Perused the records.
2. The petitioner is the sole accused in Crime No.174/2018 registered by Jnanabharathi P.S., Bengaluru for the offence under Sections 406, 420 and 354-D of IPC.
3. The brief facts of the case are that;
The complainant by name S.Harish has been residing along with his parents and working in a private company. He came in contact with the petitioner in the year 2016, who persuaded him that he is working as a HOD in Vivekananda College and is a well conversant with many number of Police Officers so that, he can get a job to the complainant in the Police Department. Under that guise, it is alleged that the petitioner has received a total sum of Rs.9,50,000/-. But, he never made any attempt to get the job done to the complainant nor repaid the said amount and has been dodging over payment of the said amount by giving unnecessary reasons. It is also alleged that when the mother of the complainant questioned the petitioner for repayment of the money, the petitioner abused her over phone and sent filthy messages to her.
4. The learned HCGP submits that the Police have to recover the mobile phone of the petitioner in order to ascertain the messages sent by him to the mother of the complainant and with regard to the other antecedents of the petitioner as to whether he is in the habit of doing the said act even to others.
5. On the above said allegations, the Police are investigating the matter. The investigation is still in progress. At this stage, I do not find any strong reasons to enlarge the petitioner on bail especially under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. However, it is made clear that the petitioner is at liberty to file a proper bail petition for grant of regular bail. In that eventuality, the concerned Court has to dispose off the said bail petition, as expeditiously as possible without any unnecessary delay.
Sd/- JUDGE Ksm*