IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE K. N. PHANEENDRA CRL.P. NO. 8310/2019 BETWEEN SRI. M.KARUNAKAR REDDY AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS S/O LATE SRI. KRISHNA REDDY RESIDING AT NO.6-104, OLD MALHAR SAHARA STATES MUNSURABAD, HYDERABAD TELAGANA STATE – 500 068 (BY SRI. SHIVAKUMAR N., ADVOCATE) AND ... PETITIONER STATE OF KARNATAKA BY RAMA MURTHY NAGAR POLICE STATION BENGALURU REP. BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDING DR.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU – 560 001 … RESPONDENT (BY SRI. HONNAPPA, HCGP) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 438 CR.P.C PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN THE EVENT OF HIS ARREST IN CR.NO.90/2018 REGISTERED BY RAMAMURTHY NAGAR POLICE STATION, BENGALURU FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 403, 406, 420 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 respondent-Ramamurthy Nagar Police Station, Bengaluru, have registered a case in Crime No. 90/2018 for the offence punishable under Sections 403, 406, 420 of IPC, on the basis of complaint lodged by one Mr. Namakeerthy, which is now pending before the Court of 4th Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru City.
3. The allegations made against the petitioner/accused in brief are that, petitioner/accused came in contact with the complainant in the year 2010 and he introduced himself that, he is from Andhra Pradesh and he is a business man working under some Government Schemes/Projects and they became friends. The complainant was doing agriculture and Real-estate business. The petitioner was doing agriculture and also business of Mineral Aqua Water Plant in and around India. The petitioner/accused and the complainant used to share their business terms with each other. One day the petitioner/accused persuaded the complainant stating that, he intended to expand his business of Mannual Aqua Water Plant to a larger extent and there is a shortage of amount and he asked the complainant to provide his land papers to show the same to the bank officials. With the trust and confidence, due to friendship, the complainant has given his land papers viz., title deed of Sy. No.77/5 and Sy. No.77/1 of Horamavu Village, to the petitioner/accused. Thereafter, the petitioner/accused took the complainant to some branches to Andhra Bank and convinced him to sign on some papers as he applied for Bank Loan for the purpose of his business and in that context, the petitioner/accused took some original documents relating to agricultural land and residential house property of the complainant. Believing that, the petitioner/accused will return the same to him after loan process, the complainant gave the same to the petitioner/accused. After few months, when the complainant asked for return of original documents given to the petitioner/accused, the petitioner started avoiding the complainant and stopped meeting him and postponing handing over the documents to him. On 05.02.2019, the complainant received a letter from the Andhra Bank stating that the bank has initiated recovery proceedings against him, as a borrower of loan and his land papers have been mortgaged by the petitioner/accused-Karunakara Reddy. The complainant being shocked and surprised by the conduct and attitude of the petitioner/accused, has filed a complaint making the above said allegations against him and the same was registered by the respondent-police in Crime No.90/2018.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner/accused has produced certain documents to show that, the complainant stood as a co-applicant and in fact, the petitioner and the complainant being Directors of a company, have taken loan and when the notice has been issued by the Bank to that effect, a false complaint has been lodged against the petitioner/accused.
5. The entire gamut of the case has to be thrashed-out during the course of investigation. The fact remains that the property has been evaluated by the engineers and thereafter accepted by the Bank before issuance of the loan to the Company. The aspect that, whether there were any differences between the petitioner/accused and the complainant, has to be thrashed-out during the course of investigation.
6. In the above facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that the petitioner/accused has made-out a case for grant of Anticipatory Bail. Hence, the following,-
ORDER The petition is allowed. Consequently, the petitioner/accused shall be released on bail in the event of his arrest in connection with Crime No.90/2018 of respondent-Ramamurthy Nagar Police Station, Bengaluru City, registered for the aforesaid offences, which is now pending before the Court of 4th Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Bengaluru City, subject to the following conditions:-
i) The petitioner shall surrender himself before the concerned Investigating Officer within Ten days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order and he shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only) with two sureties for the like-sum to the satisfaction of the concerned Investigating Officer ii) The petitioner shall not indulge in hampering the investigation or tampering the prosecution witnesses.
iii) The petitioner shall co-operate with the Investigating Officer to complete the investigation, and he shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when called for.
iv) The petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of Bengaluru District without prior permission of the Court, till the charge sheet is filed or for a period of three months, whichever is earlier.
v) The petitioner shall mark his attendance once in a week ie, on every Sunday between 10.00 am and 5.00 pm., before the concerned Investigating Officer for a period of two months or till the charge sheet is filed, whichever is earlier.
KGR* Sd/-
JUDGE