IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10th DAY OF OCTOBER 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K.N.PHANEENDRA CRIMINAL PETITION NO.6656 OF 2019 BETWEEN:
SRI. SADIQ KHAN S/O SRI ANWAR KHAN AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS R/AT. No.4624 SHIVAJI MAIN ROAD N.R. MOHALLA, MYSORE-570007. (BY SRI. JAYAPRAKASH, ADV.) AND:
STATE BY NARASHIMHARAJA POLICE MYSURU DISTRICT REPTD BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BANGALORE-560001.
(BY SRI. ROHITH B.J. HCGP) - - -
… PETITIONER … RESPONDENT 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.114/2019 registered by Narasimharaja Police Station, Mysuru for the offence P/U/S 381, 408, 420, 468, and 506 R/W 34 of IPC.
This Petition coming on for Orders this day, the Court made the following:-
ORDER Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent – State and perused the records.
2. On the complaint lodged by one Dr.Shujauddin Khan Ghori of Mysore, a case has been registered against the petitioner and another in Crime No.114/2019 for the offence punishable under Sections 381, 408, 420, 468, 506 read with 34 of IPC.
3. The brief allegations are that the petitioner and another person by name Noor Ahmed were working with the complainant and this petitioner has been taking care of the business of the complainant i.e. with regard to the choultary by name Sahara Palace and it is also stated that the petitioner was also looking after the day to day affairs and bank transactions, etc. For a period of nearly 3 years, there was no differences between the two. But in the year 2019, particularly on 11.06.2019, the complainant alleged that he came to know that by means of using forged cheques, the accused – petitioner has released a sum of Rs.9,000/-, Rs.11,000/- and Rs.10,000/- respectively on different dates. It is also stated that the petitioner has taken away some valuable documents pertaining to innova car belonging to the complainant. Therefore, he lodged a complaint making certain allegations.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would bring my attention to the fact that even much earlier to the present complaint, the parties were before the Civil Court. The petitioner’s wife by name Yamini has filed a suit in O.S.No.513/2019 against the complainant herein and others for permanent injunction and for such other reliefs in respect of the property bearing No.4624/1, L-34/1 situated at Shivaji Main Road, N.R.Mohalla, Mysuru having specific measurement and boundaries. The said suit was filed on 29.05.2019. But even after filing of the suit, the above said complaint was filed after long lapse of nearly 3½ months on 09.08.2019. The present report was filed by the police on the basis of which, FIR has been registered.
5. Looking to the above said facts and circumstances, the complainant himself has given authority to the petitioner with reference to the bank transactions. Whether the signatures on the Cheques of the complainant are forged or they belong to the signature of the complainant, have to be thrashed out during the course of full fledged investigation and trial. As those documents are already available with the bank authorities and in view of the above said civil suit pending and the complaint being filed after filing of the suit, in my opinion, the petitioner has to be admitted to bail subject to certain conditions. Hence, the following ORDER The petition is allowed. Consequently, the petitioner shall be released on bail in the event of his arrest in connection with Crime No.114/2019 of Narasimharaja Police Station for the offences under Sections 381, 408, 420, 468, 506 read with 34 of IPC, subject to the following conditions:-
i) The petitioner shall surrender himself before the Investigating Officer within Ten days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order and he shall execute his personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with one surety 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 Investigating Officer without prior permission, till the case against him is disposed of.
v) The petitioner shall mark his attendance once in fifteen days between 10.00 am and 5.00 pm., before the Investigating Officer for a period of two months or till the charge sheet is filed, whichever is earlier.
Sd/- JUDGE RV