Santhosh Gowda vs The State of Karnataka

Budihal R.B., J.—This petition is filed by petitioner-accused No. 4 u/s 438 of Cr.P.C. seeking anticipatory bail to direct the respondent-police to release the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 506, 406 and 420 r/w Section 34 of I.P.C. registered in respondent police station Crime No. 563/2013.

Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner-accused No. 4 and also the learned Government Pleader for the respondent-State.

Learned counsel for the petitioner during the course of his arguments submitted that as per the averments in the complaint, nowhere it is mentioned that the present petitioner has received any amount from the complainant. He has submitted that the allegation of receiving money is only against accused Nos. 2, 3 and 8 and not against the petitioner herein. He has further submitted that accused No. 2 against whom allegations are made of receiving the amount from the complainant has been granted with anticipatory bail by this Court. As such, on the ground of parity, present petitioner is also entitled to anticipatory bail.

As against this, learned Government Pleader during the course of his arguments submitted that looking to the allegations in the complaint, it is seen that the accused persons have cheated the complainant by receiving huge amount from him on the assurance that they will supply materials and ultimately, they have neither supplied the materials nor repaid the amount to him. Hence, when such serious allegations are made against the accused persons, petitioner is not entitled to be granted with anticipatory bail.

I have perused the averments made in the bail petition, complaint, FIR and other materials placed on record. So also the order passed by this Court dated 17.1.2014 in Crl. P. No. 7520/2013. Looking to the allegations made in the complaint as well as the other materials produced, it clearly goes to show that the transaction between the complainant and the accused persons is civil in nature and the complainant has to take steps for recovery of the said amount if according to the agreement the amount is not repaid or the materials were not supplied. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there are no serious allegations made in the complaint against the petitioner herein that he has also received the amount and cheated the complainant. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case it is seen that the present petitioner-accused No. 4 is also placed on the same footing with that of accused No. 2 Mohamed Ali in respect of whom anticipatory bail has been already granted by this Court. Therefore, on the ground of parity, the present petitioner is also entitled to be granted with anticipatory bail. So far as the apprehension of the prosecution and to secure the presence of the present petitioner either before the Investigating Officer or before the trial Court, reasonable conditions can be imposed, which will safeguard the interest of the prosecution.

Accordingly, petition is allowed. The respondent-police are directed to release the petitioner-accused No. 4 on bail in the event of his arrest for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 506, 406 and 420 r/w Section 34 of IPC registered in respondent-police station Crime No. 563/2013 subject to the following conditions:

(i) Petitioner shall execute a personal bond for Rs. 1,00,000/- and furnish one surety for the like sum to the satisfaction of the concerned Magistrate Court.

(ii) He shall not tamper with any of the prosecution witnesses directly or indirectly.

(iii) He shall make himself available before the Investigating Officer for interrogation whenever called for.

(iv) He shall give attendance before the respondent-police station on every Sunday between 10.00 a.m. and 11.00 a.m. till the completion of the investigation.

(v) He shall appear before the concerned Court within 30 days from the date of this order and to execute personal bond and also surety bond.