Chandra Shekar K M vs State Of Karnataka

H.P. Sandesh, J

This petition is filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. praying this Court to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest in respect of Crime No.172/2013 (C.C.No.298/2019) registered by the Chickballapura Town Police Station, Chikkaballapur, for the offences punishable under Sections 419, 420, 465, 467, 468, 120B of IPC.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State.

The factual matrix of the case is that this petitioner had executed a registered sale agreement in favour of the complainant in respect of the property bearing Sy.No.158/2 measuring 11 guntas on 17.02.2011 after receiving an amount of Rs.3 lakhs as an advance but the documents are not supplied to the complainant till 27.05.2013 and also not registered the absolute sale deed in favour of the complainant and on enquiry, the complainant came to know that on 15.03.2010 itself, the very same property was sold in favour of one Murthy and again he has sold the said property in favour of the complainant knowing fully well that the property was already sold to someone else. Based on the complaint, the case was registered against three persons at the time of filing of the charge-sheet, the case has been registered against this petitioner for the aforesaid offences.

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is not aware of the registration of the case and while filing of the charge-sheet also, his name is shown in the absconded column and no summons was served against him and NBW was issued and now the proclamation was also issued against this petitioner hence, prayed to allow the petition.

Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the State would submit that the very specific allegation is made against this petitioner in the complaint that even though the property was sold in the year 2010 itself to someone else, the very same property was sold to the complainant by receiving almost sale consideration amount of Rs.3 lakhs on 17.02.2011 hence, there is a fraud on the complainant at the inception hence, the petitioner is not entitled for the bail and the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State submits that though the case was registered against him based on the private complaint filed in the year 2013 itself, this petitioner did not appear before the Court and now, after the lapse of almost a decade, he had approached this Court by filing the present petition that too invoking Section 438 of Cr.P.C. and already proclamation was issued against this petitioner hence, prayed to dismiss the petition.

Having heard the respective counsel appearing for the parties and also on perusal of the material available on record it discloses that particularly, the specific allegation made against this petitioner is that inspite of the property was sold to one Murthy in the year 2010 itself, the very same property was sold in favour of the complainant in the year 2011 by receiving almost entire sale consideration of Rs.3 lakhs out of Rs.3,10,000/- as an advance amount by executing a registered sale agreement. When such specific allegations are made that at the very inception, with an intention to cheat the complainant, a registered document was executed in favour of the complainant and the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the names of other two persons were not included in the charge-sheet and the same cannot be accepted when there is an allegation against only this petitioner hence, Investigating Officer did not find any material against other two persons, hence, their names are not included in the charge-sheet and the learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the other alternative remedy is available to the complainant and the very said submission cannot be accepted when an allegation of fraud is invoked at the inception only and also taking into note of the fact that the very same property was sold in the year 2010 itself to someone else and again the petitioner has received an amount of Rs.3 lakhs out of Rs.3,10,000/- i.e., almost entire sale consideration from the complainant and at the very inception, with an intention to commit fraud on the complainant, again entered into a registered sale agreement. The other contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that no summons were issued against the petitioner and NBW was issued and proclamation was also issued and the fact that the complaint was filed in the year 2013 and proclamation was issued against the petitioner almost after a lapse of a decade and having considered the merits of the petition, the petitioner has not made out a case to enlarge him on anticipatory bail. Hence, it is not a fit case to exercise the discretion in favour of the petitioner under Section 438 of Cr.P.C.

In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following:

ORDER

The bail petition is rejected.