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

Sri S N Mahadeva vs State Of Karnataka

High Court Of Karnataka|28 January, 2019
|

JUDGMENT / ORDER

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE B.A. PATIL CRIMINAL PETITION NO.9725 OF 2018 BETWEEN:
Sri.S.N.Mahadeva S/o Late Nagappa, Aged about 53 years, R/at. Singasandra, Begur Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk, Bengaluru-560 068. ...Petitioner (By Sri. Vijay Kumar Prakash, Advocate) AND:
State of Karnataka Represented by Police Inspector, Begur Police Station, Now represented by, The State Public Prosecutor, High Court of Karnataka Building, Bengaluru-560 001. ... Respondent (By Sri. K.P. Yoganna, HCGP) This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 438 of Criminal Procedure Code praying to enlarge the petitioners on bail in the event of his arrest in Crime No.282/2018 of Beguru Police Station, Bengaluru for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 448, 468, 471 of IPC.
This Criminal Petition coming on for Orders, this day, the Court made the following:
O R D E R The present petition has been filed by the petitioner/accused No.1 under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. praying this Court to release him on anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest in Crime No.282/2018 of Beguru Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 448, 468 and 471 of IPC.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent-State.
3. Gist of the complaint are that complainant is a Director of M/s.Skylark Realty (P) Ltd., company and the said Company as per the registered sale deed dated 24.09.2011 has purchased the property bearing Sy.Nos.109/1 of Singasandra Village, Begur Hobli from the petitioner-accused for a sale consideration of ` 9 crore. Subsequently BMRCL acquired the portion of the aforesaid property by accusation and M/s.Skylark Realty (P) Ltd and made an application for the award of compensation and subsequently when the complainant came to know that the accused by defrauding and cheating the aforesaid company, the complainant has received the compensation of ` 5 Crore from BMRCL on the basis of concocted and created document. On the basis of the complainant, he was constrained to file the complaint.
4. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that Sy.No.109/1 is more then 7 acres and odd and out of the same, some portion has been acquired and he has not received the compensation and that he is not going to deny that the portion of the land has been sold to M/s.Skylark Reality (P) Ltd, he also further submitted that he has not defrauded or played any fraud on the company and taken compensation from the BMRCL. He further submitted that still the properties are standing in the name of his mother along with petitioner-accused and his brothers. Further he submitted that petitioners/accused No.1 is ready to co- operate with the investigation, abide by any conditions that may be imposed on him by this Court and ready to offer sureties. On these grounds, he prayed to allow the petition and to release the petitioner/accused No.1 on anticipatory bail.
5. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader vehemently argued and submitted that still the investigation is in progress and investigating officer has to collect the records and that there is serious allegation caused. He further submitted that if the petitioner/accused No.1 is released on bail, he may abscond and may not be available for trial. On these grounds, he prayed to dismiss the petition.
6. I have carefully and cautiously gone through the contents of the complaint and other materials, which has been produced in this behalf.
7. When the agreements entered into on selling of the property is not in dispute, the only allegation of the complainant is that the petitioner-accused by playing fraud and concocted and created the documents and cheated the company and has received the compensation of `.5 Crore by BMRCL. On the basis of concocted documents, it is a matter which has to be considered after trial.
8. Keeping in view the above facts and circumstances, petition is allowed and the petitioner/accused No.1 is enlarged on anticipatory bail in Crime No.282/2018 of Beguru Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 448, 468, 471 of IPC subject to the following conditions:
1. In the event of his arrest, the Investigating Officer is directed to enlarge him on bail on he being executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/-(Rupees Two Lakh Only) with two sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer.
2. He should surrender before the Investigation Officer within 15 days from today.
3. He shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence in any manner.
4. He shall mark his attendance once in 15 days between 10.00 a.m., to 5.00 p.m., before the concerned police station till the charge sheet is filed.
5. He shall co-operate with the investigating officer and he should appear before the investigating officer as and when he is ordered to do so.
6. He shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Court without prior permission.
Sd/- JUDGE ag
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 S N Mahadeva vs State Of Karnataka

Court

High Court Of Karnataka

JudgmentDate
28 January, 2019
Judges
  • B A Patil