Judgments
Judgments
  1. Home
  2. /
  3. High Court Of Karnataka
  4. /
  5. 2019
  6. /
  7. January

Sri Krishnegowda vs State Of Karnataka

High Court Of Karnataka|27 November, 2019
|

JUDGMENT / ORDER

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE K.N.PHANEENDRA CRIMINAL PETITION No.7941/2019 BETWEEN:
SRI KRISHNEGOWDA, S/O LATE GIRIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, R/AT NO.104, 1ST FLOOR, TOWER – B, RNS SHANTHI NIVAS, TUMKUR MAIN ROAD, NEAR RNS MOTORS, YESHWANTHPUR, BENGALURU – 560 022. … PETITIONER (BY SRI R.B. SADASIVAPPA , ADVOCATE FOR SMT RAJESHWARI .M., ADVOCATE) AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA BY SHO, HANUMANTHANAGAR P.S. BENGALURU CITY, REPTD. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU – 560 001. ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI ROHITH .B.J., HCGP.) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE, PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER IN CR.NO.204/2019 OF HANUMANTHANAGAR POLICE STATION, BENGALURU FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 406, 420, 468, 417 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 learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent – State. Perused the records.
2. Petitioner is the sole accused in Crime No.204/2019 registered by the respondent – Police for the offence under Sections 406, 420, 468 and 417 IPC.
3. Brief facts of the case are that a person by name T.Shivakumar has lodged a complaint stating that petitioner in the year 2018 has shown some bank documents and persuaded the complainant stating that he has some huge amount of money i.e. 343,431,200-00 dollars in American City Bank and in order to bring that money to India, complainant has to spend some money and in return, he will pay double the amount paid by the complainant. In this context, the complainant on assurance has drawn the amount of Rs.11,67,30,000/- from November, 2018 to March, 2019 and paid the same to the petitioner. But thereafter, petitioner did not pay back the said amount and thereby, it is contended that he has cheated the complainant.
4. The above said transaction discloses that huge amount is involved in the case. No material is placed along with the complaint to show that the complainant has actually paid such huge amount only on the assurance of the petitioner and as to what are the documents he verified before paying such huge amount. Of course, the said facts should be investigated during the course of trial. The Court also suspects the conduct of the complainant as to possession of such huge cash of Rs.11,67,30,000/- as on that day. Whether the said amount is legal amount and it is declared amount in the income tax department, etc. are also to be examined during investigation. Having doubted the said contract between the parties, in my opinion, petitioner is entitled to be enlarged on bail.
5. Before parting with this order, I also feel it just and necessary to send a copy of this order to the Income Tax Department, so as to enable the said department to ascertain about the genuineness of the transaction and if such huge amount is paid by the complainant to the petitioner, whether said amount is tax paid amount.
6. With the above observations, I pass the following:
ORDER The Petition is allowed. Consequently, the petitioner shall be released on bail in connection with Crime No.204/2019 registered by the Hanumanthanagar Police Station for the offence punishable under Sections 406, 420, 468 and 417 IPC, subject to the following conditions:
(i) The petitioner shall execute his personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) with one surety for the like-sum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional court.
(ii) The petitioner shall not indulge in tampering the prosecution witnesses.
(iii) The petitioner shall appear before the jurisdictional court on all the future hearing dates unless exempted by the court for any genuine cause.
(iv) The petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the trial Court without prior permission of the court till the case registered against him is disposed of.
Registry is hereby directed to send the copy of this order to the jurisdictional Commissioner of Income Tax for taking appropriate steps in this regard.
Sd/-
JUDGE PKS
Disclaimer: Above Judgment displayed here are taken straight from the court; Vakilsearch has no ownership interest in, reservation over, or other connection to them.
Title

Sri Krishnegowda vs State Of Karnataka

Court

High Court Of Karnataka

JudgmentDate
27 November, 2019
Judges
  • K N Phaneendra