IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF JULY 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S. SUNIL DUTT YADAV CRIMINAL PETITION No.8946/2018 Between:
Sri Veeraprasad J., S/o Hanumappa, Aged about 57 years, Residing at D-3, Apoorva Mapples, HBR Layout, 5th Block, 1st Stage, Kalyananagar, Bengaluru – 560 043. … Petitioner (By Sri Narayana Reddy H.S., Advocate) And:
The State of Karnataka, Siddapura Police Station, Rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru Branch, Bengaluru – 560 001. … Respondent (By Sri K.P. Yoganna, HCGP) This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C., praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest in Cr. No.15/2017 of Siddapura Police Station, Bengaluru City for the offences p/u/s 364A, 384, 120B, 323 and 506 of IPC.
This Criminal Petition coming on for Orders this day, the Court, made the following:
ORDER The petitioner is seeking to be enlarged on bail in the event of his arrest pursuant to the proceedings in Crime No.15/2017 for the offences punishable under Sections 364A, 384, 120B, 323 and 506 of IPC.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the complainant employer and accused No.12 Veeraprasad.J were running a real estate business on partnership basis. It is stated that Venkatasubba Reddy and the petitioner were together and left home for their office at 8.30 a.m. on 18.01.2017. It is stated that as they did not return home, the employer’s wife CW4 Krishnaveni enquired regarding the whereabouts and she was informed that he was staying in the office. Subsequently, it is stated that the mobile phone remained switched off. On the next day morning CW4 tried to call her husband and it is stated that he picked the call and told that two persons would come and collect Rs.2,00,000/-. It is stated that complainant gathered the information that her husband had been kidnapped. The complaint came to be lodged and FIR was registered, pursuant to which the investigation is complete and charge sheet has been filed. It is stated that accused No.1 to 6 have been enlarged on regular bail.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the only offence made out as against the petitioner is that at his instance, the offence was committed and he was the instigator and hence, the offence under Section 120-B has been committed by him. He further contends that the complaint is mala fide and arose out of a real estate transaction amongst the partners of the business and had been filed in order to obtain undue advantage relating to the transaction.
4. Learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent State opposes grant of bail and states that for custodial interrogation the petitioner would be required.
5. It is to be noted that accused Nos.1 and 2 were initially in custody and hence have subjected themselves to custodial interrogation. Insofar as the material gathered during custodial interrogation of accused Nos.1 and 2, the same is to be established during trial.
6. It is to be noted that some of the other accused have subjected themselves to custodial interrogation and no case is made out for custodial interrogation of the petitioner as such.
7. It is to be further noted that the Sessions Court has rejected the application of the petitioner observing that the custodial interrogation would be required and that the charge sheet was not filed.
8. Needless to state that to ensure that the petitioner co-operates with the Investigating Officer, stringent conditions could be imposed on him.
9. In light of the fact that investigation is complete and charge sheet has been filed, the question as to whether the petitioner was the main conspirator for the commission of offence is a matter to be established during trial.
10. Accordingly, taking note of the fact that accused Nos.1 and 2 had been subjected to custodial interrogation, the petitioner is also entitled to be enlarged on bail.
11. In the result, the bail petition filed by the petitioner under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. is allowed and the petitioner is enlarged on bail in the event of his arrest in Crime No.15/2017 for the offences punishable under Sections 364A, 384, 120B, 323 and 506 of IPC, subject to the following conditions:-
(i) The petitioner shall appear in person before the Investigating Officer in connection with Crime No.15/2017 within 15 days from the date of release of the order and shall execute a personal bond for a sum of `1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) with a surety for the likesum.
(ii) The petitioner shall not tamper with evidence, influence in any way, any witness.
(iii) The petitioner shall co-operate with further investigation by appearing before the Investigating Officer as and when he is called upon.
(iv) In the event of change of address, the petitioner to inform the same to the concerned SHO.
(v) Any violation of the aforementioned conditions by the petitioner, shall result in cancellation of bail.
(vi) The petitioner shall also co-operate for the expeditious disposal of the trial.
Any observation made herein shall not be taken as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.
Sd/- JUDGE VGR