IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF AUGUST 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. N. PHANEENDRA CRIMINAL PETITION No.5122/2019 BETWEEN:
SRI SURESH N. N., SON OF NAGABHUSHANA BHAT, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, RESIDENT AT 442/1, BEML III STAGE, RAJARAJESHWARINAGAR, BENGALURU-560098. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI ABHINAY Y. T., ADVOCATE) AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY CHAMARAJAPETE POLICE, BENGALURU.
REPRESENTED BY THE SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU-560 001. ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI K. P. YOGANNA, HCGP, SRI S. RAJASHEKAR, ADVOCATE) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S.438 CR.P.C PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CR.NO.56/2019 REGISTERED BY CHAMARAJPET POLICE STATION, BENGALURU FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 406, 420, 468 AND 471 R/W 34 OF IPC.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. Sri S. Rajshekar, the learned counsel has filed an application under Section 301 of Cr.P.C. seeking permission of this Court to permit him to assist the learned High Court Government Pleader. The said application is allowed and he is permitted to assist the learned High Court Government Pleader. Perused the records.
2. On perusal of the materials on record, it appears that a complaint came to be registered in Crime No.56/2019 against one Sri Nagendra Rao and others for the offences under Sections 406, 420, 468 and 471 read with Section 34 of IPC.
3. The brief allegations are that the complainant by name Sri S. R. Uday Shankar is a Class-I Contractor and he was residing at Chamarajpet, Bengaluru. It is stated that the petitioner was working as an accountant with him and it is alleged that Sri Nagendra Rao was also working as an office accountant and the said Nagendra Rao has fabricated the signature of the complainant on the cheques belonging to the complainant and transferred the amounts to the extent of Rs.1.72 Crores to different accounts. On the basis of the above, the police have started the investigation. The said complaint was lodged by Sri S. R. Uday Shankar on 3.4.2019. In the complaint itself it is stated that the petitioner has informed the complainant with reference to the misbehavior and creating the fake cheques by the said Nagendra Rao and thereafter only it appears that complaint came to be lodged. The complainant has not suspected the petitioner at that particular point of time because he himself had informed the complainant about the same. In this backdrop, it is the further case of the petitioner that there was some strained relationship between himself and the complainant. In this context, he filed a suit in O.S.No.3475/2019 before the City Civil Court, Bengaluru against the complainant herein for cancellation of the sale deed, for injunction, etc. Thereafter, it appears that one more report has been submitted by the complainant on 11.6.2019 stating that the petitioner, who was also working as an accountant has also misused the cheques of the complainant and created fake signatures on the cheques, which is due to be credited to the account of the complainant. On these allegations, it is alleged that the petitioner has accepted his guilt before the complainant and he has paid an amount Rs.15,00,000/- and Rs.7,50,000/- in cash to him. When the complainant demanded for the remaining amount, the petitioner threatened him with dire consequences, on the basis of which the police have infact registered a case against the petitioner also in the same crime number for similar offences.
4. Looking to the above said facts and circumstances, when it is categorically stated that the petitioner was working as an accountant and at the earliest point of time on 3.4.2019, when the complainant has examined his accounts and other accounts, he has not made any allegations against the petitioner. After the lodgment of the suit, it appears that a subsequent report has been filed by the complainant. Though the Court cannot at this stage draw any inference with regard to the conduct of the petitioner, nevertheless in view of the above said facts and circumstances, as there was no mention of the name of the petitioner in the earlier complaint and subsequently after filing of the suit, the subsequent complaint has been lodged against the petitioner, in my opinion the conduct of the petitioner as well as the complainant have to be thrashed out by the investigating agency during the course of investigation. However, though the petitioner is directed to be enlarged on anticipatory bail, but I feel it just and necessary to impose stringent conditions on the petitioner. On the above said facts and circumstances, the following order is passed:
ORDER The petition is allowed. Consequently, the petitioner shall be released on bail in the event of his arrest in connection with Crime No.56/2019 of Chamarajpet Police Station, on following conditions:-
i) The petitioner shall surrender himself before the Investigating Officer within one week 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 likesum to the satisfaction of the concerned Investigating Officer.
ii) The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer at the convenience of the Investigating Officer between 9 a.m. and 6 p.m.
on any two days for the purpose of investigation, interrogation, recovery, etc. by the Investigating Officer.
iii) The petitioner shall not indulge in hampering the investigation or tampering the prosecution witnesses.
iv) 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.
v) The petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of Karnataka State without prior permission of the Investigating Officer during the course of investigation and if the charge-sheet is filed, without the permission of the Court during the pendency of the proceedings before the Court.
vi) The petitioner shall mark his attendance once in a week i.e., on every Sunday between 10.00 am and 5.00 pm., before the Investigating Officer for a period of three months or till the final report is submitted by the police, whichever is earlier.
Sd/- JUDGE MD