IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF JULY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S. SUNIL DUTT YADAV CRIMINAL PETITION No.9128/2018 BETWEEN:
Sri. Vimal Kumar S V, S/o. M.Srikantan Nayak, Aged about 38 years, R/at: KRA-227-2, Ponnur Lane, Azad Cross, Ponnur, Trivandrum, Kerala-695012 ... Petitioner (By Sri. Prakash M H, Advocate) AND:
State of Karnataka, Rep. by State Public Prosecutor, High Court-560001, Through Mico Layout Police Station, Bengaluru-560042. ... Respondent (By Sri. S.Rachaiah, HCGP) This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest in Crime No.937/2015 (C.C.No.22700/2018) of Mico Layout Police Station, Bengaluru City for the offences punishable under Sections 120B, 465, 466, 468, 473, 474, 471, 419, 420 read with 34 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 with respect to proceedings in Crime No.937/2015 for the offences punishable under Sections 120B, 465, 466, 468, 473, 474, 471, 419, 420 read with 34 of IPC.
2. The case of the prosecution is that on the basis of a report dated 02.10.2015 of the Assistant Commissioner of Transport and Senior Road Transport Officer, Electronic City, Bengaluru submitted to the respondent-Police, a complaint was registered. It is stated that a Volvo bus bearing Registration No.KL-13-AA-6750 was intercepted and when called upon to produce receipts relating to road tax, Receipts were produced by the driver of the bus-accused No.3. It is stated that the receipts were found to be fake and on eliciting further information, and on not being satisfied with the answers to the queries, the driver of the bus- accused No.3 was arrested. It is further stated that on the basis of the voluntary statement of accused No.3, the petitioner was implicated. The case that is made out in the charge sheet is that the petitioner was the brain behind the said racket. It is further stated that pursuant to further investigation, there has been recovery of seals from the driver of the bus-accused No.3.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that except for the voluntary statement of accused Nos.1 and 2, imputation as made out in the charge sheet against the petitioner is not founded on any basis. It is further stated that despite, the custodial interrogation of the driver-accused No.3, there is no incriminating material that has been recovered as against the petitioner. It is further submitted that the petitioner has no criminal antecedents.
4. Learned High Court Government Pleader however, submits that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required and states upon instructions that it is the petitioner, who is involved in the racket of creating fake bills resulting in loss to the State Exchequer.
5. However, it is to be noticed that charge sheet has been filed after investigation. The driver-accused No.3 has been subjected to custodial interrogation, the seizure of seals is from accused No.3, who was arrested immediately. The version of the complaint as would come from the voluntary statement of accused Nos.1 and 2 is a matter to be proved during the trial. There are no criminal antecedents as against the petitioner. Accordingly, petitioner is entitled to be enlarged on bail, subject to co-operation with the investigation, which could be ensured by imposition of necessary conditions.
6. In the result, the bail petition filed by the petitioner under Section 438 of Cr.P.C., is allowed and the petitioner is to be enlarged on bail in the event of arrest pursuant to proceedings in Crime No.937/2015 for the offences punishable under Sections 120B, 465, 466, 468, 473, 474, 471, 419, 420 read with 34 of IPC, subject to the following conditions:
(i) The petitioner shall appear in person before the Investigating Officer in connection with Crime No.937/2015 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 two sureties, one of which would be a solvent surety from his home town for the likesum before the concerned court.
(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) The petitioner shall not indulge in any criminal activities of like nature.
(v) In the event of change of address, the petitioner to inform the same to the concerned SHO.
(vi) Any violation of the aforementioned conditions by the petitioner shall result in cancellation of bail.
Any observation made herein shall not be taken as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.
Sd/- JUDGE RB