IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF APRIL, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE B.A. PATIL CRIMINAL PETITION NO.237/2019 BETWEEN:
1. Mr. Thimmaiah, S/o. Late Guruswamaiah, Aged about 41 years, R/at No.89, O.B. Choodahalli Village, Udayapura Post, Bengaluru South Taluk, Kanakapura Main Road, Bengaluru-560 082.
2. Sri Jayaram, S/o. Late Venkatappa, Aged about 45 years, R/at No.154, O.B. Choodahalli Village, Udayapura Post, Bengaluru South Taluk, Kanakapura Main Road, Bengaluru-560 082. ...Petitioners (By Smt. Haleema Ameen, Adv., for Sri S. Vishwajith Shetty, Advocate) AND:
State of Karnataka, Vinoba Nagar Police Station, Shimoga, Represented by State Public Prosecutor, High Court Buildings, Bengaluru-560 001. … Respondent (By Sri M. Divakar Maddur, HCGP) This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C., praying to enlarge the petitioners on bail in the event of their arrest in Cr.No.165/2013 registered by Vinobhanagar Police Station, Shivamogga for the offence p/u/s 420 r/w 34 of IPC.
This Criminal Petition coming on for Orders, this day, the Court made the following:
O R D E R This petition has been filed by petitioner-accused Nos.3 and 4 under Section 438 of Cr.P.C., to release them on anticipatory bail in the event of their arrest by Vinoba Nagar Police Station for the offence punishable under Section 420 read with 34 of IPC.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State.
3. The gist of the complaint is that accused Nos.1 to 4 by taking shop from CW.6 have started the chit business under the name and style of “Keerthi Prasad Chit Private Limited” from 20.08.2011. The accused No.1 was the Executive Manager, Accused No.2 is the Head of the Bengaluru Head Office, accused Nos.3 and 4 are the partners of Shivamogga Branch. By advertising the scheme of chit tariff, the petitioners have promised to pay the benefits to the general public stating that, if they have deposited amount continuously for 20 months, they can get Rs.1,00,000/-. By giving such assurance, accused Nos.1 to 4 have collected in all Rs.3,40,350/-, but they have not return the said amount and subsequently they have closed the business and locked the office. On the basis of the same a case has been registered.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners/accused Nos.3 and 4 have released themselves from the said partnership by Release deed dated 30.10.2011. They were not concerned to the alleged chit business and they are not the members of the said business. She further submitted that they were not aware of the case pending against them. She further submitted that the alleged offences are not punishable with death or imprisonment for life. She further submitted that the accused persons were not aware of the money transaction and they have not cheated any public. She also submitted that petitioners came to know about the pendency of the case only after proclamation was issued. She further submitted that no notice has been served and NBW has been executed. She further submitted that they are ready to abide by any conditions and ready to offer surety. On these grounds, she prays to allow the petition.
5. Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader vehemently argued and submitted that the case is registered on 05.07.2013 and already investigation has been completed and the charge sheet has been filed. The petitioners are absconding and absconding charge sheet has been filed. Thereafter, the Court below had issued NBW and even the proclamation has been issued as against the petitioners. As such, the petitioners are not entitled to be released on anticipatory bail. On these grounds, he prays to dismiss the petition.
6. I have carefully and cautiously gone through the submission of both the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the records.
7. Though it is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that by release deed dated 30.10.2011 petitioners have got released themselves from said partnership firm. But it is well settled proposition of law by the Hon’ble Apex Court that if the accused is absconding and proclamation has been issued under Section 82 of Cr.P.C., then under such circumstances, grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners is not justified. This proposition of law has been laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Pradeep Sharma reported in (2014) SC Page 626. Keeping in view of the ratio laid down in the above decision when already the proclamation has been issued as against the petitioners then under such circumstances, it is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail.
Accordingly, petition is rejected. However, in the event if petitioners/accused Nos.3 and 4 are surrendered before the Court below and apply for regular bail, the same may be considered without considering the above observation expeditiously.
Sd/-
JUDGE nms