L.C. Bhagya vs State of Karnataka

Budihal R.B, J.—Since the petitioner in all the three petitions is one and the same and the petitions are also filed u/s 438 of Cr.P.C. they are taken together to dispose of the same by common order.

These petitions are filed by the petitioner-accused u/s 438 of Cr.P.C. seeking a direction to the respondent police that in the event of her arrest, she be released on bail of the offence punishable u/s 420 of IPC registered in respondent Police Station Crime Nos. 29/2014, 30/2014 and 31/2014 respectively.

I have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner-accused in all the three petitions and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State.

I have perused the averments made in the bail petitions and the other materials produced by the learned Counsel for the petitioner.

The allegations made in the complaints are one and the same. It is mentioned in the complaints that on 31.1.2014, S. Hemalatha, wife of Lakshmipathi lodged the said complaints stating that one Srinivasappa is residing at Kothagondanahalli Village, Krishnagiri District, Hosur Taluk. His son one Chandrashekar and his wife L.C. Bhagya and Chandrashekar''s sisters husband one Venkatesh opened Agri Nature Plus Office situated at TVS Showroom, Attibele Village, Anekal Road and the said office was working from last 4 years. They used to collect money from public and they used to advertise the public stating that they will double the amount. The complainant was a pigmy agent for the said company and she used to collect Rs. 70,000/- per week and she used to get receipts. For the said 4 years, the complainant has deposited Rs. 15,00,000/- and the said amount was matured in the year 2012. After the completion of maturity period, the complainant enquired the company and they used to drag and they used to say that they will sell the property and settle the matter and accordingly, they have cheated the complainant and other 500 members for a sum of Rs. 4-5 Crores. On the basis of the said complaint, the case was registered by the respondent police.

Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, during the course of the arguments, submitted that accused No. 1 and accused No. 3-Venkatesh have been already granted bail. Even the petitioner has also been granted bail in another case. As per the conditions of the bail order, the petitioner is appearing before the concerned Court regularly. Looking to the allegations made in the complaint and also the other materials, the allegation is that the petitioner along with her husband and her relative Venkatesh has cheated the complainant and the other members.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner has produced the bail order dated 19.3.2014 passed by this Court in Crl. P. No. 1318/2014 in respect of accused No. 3 Venkatesh. Perusal of the said order, the allegations against the petitioner about her involvement in committing the alleged offence is that she has cheated public as well the present complainant in not paying Rs. 15.00 lakh. The alleged offence u/s 420 of IPC triable by the Court of Magistrate and they are not exclusively punishable with death or imprisonment for life. The petitioner is a woman and her case comes under the proviso to Section 437 of Cr.P.C. She has undertaken that she is ready to abide by any condition that may be imposed by this Court. Therefore, looking to the materials on record so also the order passed by this Court and the Sessions Court, I am of the opinion that by imposing reasonable conditions, the petitioner in all the three petitions can be admitted to bail.

Accordingly, these petitions are allowed. The respondent police are directed to release the petitioner on bail in the event of her arrest for the offences punishable u/s 420 of IPC registered in respondent Police Station Crime Nos. 29/2014, 30/2014 and 31/2014 respectively, subject to the following conditions:

I. The petitioner shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/-(Rupees one lakh only) and shall offer one solvent surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the concerned Court.

II. The petitioner shall appear before the investigating officer for the purpose of interrogation, whenever called upon to do so.

III. The petitioner shall not intimidate or tamper with prosecution witnesses, directly or indirectly.

IV. The petitioner shall appear before the concerned Court within thirty days from the date of this order and shall execute personal bond as well as surety bond.