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.8475/2017 BETWEEN:
SRI R.N.NARASIMHACHAR S/O LATE R.NARASIMHACHAR, AGED ABOUT 81 YEARS R/AT NO.337, KRISHNA NAGARA, PANDAVAPURA TOWN, MANDYA DISTRICT-571434 ... PETITIONER (BY SRI SHRIDHARA K., ADV.) AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA BY MELUKOTE POLICE, REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, AMBEDKAR BEEDI, 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 HIS ARREST IN CR.NO.124/2015 OF MELUKOTE P.S., MANDYA DISTRICT FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 143, 406, 420 R/W 149 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. 2 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 his arrest for the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 of IPC registered in respondent police station Crime No.124/2015.
2. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/accused No.2 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. Looking to the complaint averments, there is no whisper about the involvement of the present petitioner in committing the alleged offence. The whole allegations are against Accused No.1, one A.P.Sathish, who was appraiser of the gold ornaments pledged to the Bank for seeking loan on the basis of security of the said gold ornaments. It is no doubt true that subsequently it is noticed by the Bank that gold which was pledged in the Bank is a spurious gold and not genuine but Accused No.1 has issued fake certificate.
5. From the materials on record, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that so far as the present petitioner is concerned, there is no material to reject the bail application of the present petitioner. It is contended that he is innocent and not involved in committing the offence. There is false implication. He is ready to abide by any reasonable conditions to be imposed by this Court.
6. Though it is contended by the learned HCGP that the matter is still under investigation, by imposing reasonable conditions, the petitioners could be admitted to anticipatory bail. The alleged offenses are triable by the Magistrate Court. Hence, it is a fit case to exercise the discretion in favour of the petitioners.
7. Accordingly, petition is allowed. The respondent-Police is directed to enlarge the present petitioner-Accused No. 2 on bail in the event of his arrest for the alleged offence registered in respondent police station Crime No.124/2015, 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 has to make himself available before the Investigating Officer for interrogation, as and when called for.
iv. Petitioner has 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.