Smt. Veena vs State of Karnataka

Budihal R.B., J.—This petition is filed by the petitioner-accused No. 2 u/s 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking her release on bail of the offence punishable under Sections 420 read with Section 34 of IPC registered in respondent Police Station Crime No. 393/2013.

Brief facts of the prosecution case are that the complainant saw an advertisement in Deccan Herald news paper given by one Amaragiri Financial Services stating that they will provide loans and contact numbers were also provided in the advertisement. The complainant contacted to the said numbers. A girl picked up the phone telling that Mr. Prabhakar, owner of Amaragiri Financial Services will provide loan on the basis of the property documents and she also gave the office address. The complainant has alleged that when he visited the said office, he saw many people holding documents for getting loan. The complainant spoke to Prabhakar-accused No. 1 and his wife-accused No. 2, the petitioner herein. They said that initial installment must be paid before grant of loan and a brochure containing loan details was given to him. The complainant has further alleged that he wanted loan of Rs. 35,00,000/- and for that, he paid amount of Rs. 75,000/- and got a receipt for having paid the same. When he asked for loan amount, both accused Nos. 1 and 2 informed that the property documents were not proper and instructed him to get some other property documents for sanction of loan. The complainant got frustrated and on 11.11.2013 at about 5.30 p.m., he along with his friends by name Niranjan Murthy and Srinivas went to the office of accused No. 1. On enquiry, they came to know that accused No. 1 and the petitioner-accused No. 2 have cheated many other persons and they have not provided loan by collecting amount from them. On the basis of the complaint, the case was registered by the respondent police arraying the petitioner as accused No. 2.

I have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner-accused No. 2 and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner, during the course of the arguments, submitted that the main allegations are against accused No. 1. Accused No. 2 is the wife of accused No. 1 She has been falsely implicated in the case and she is innocent. She has not at all committed the alleged offence. The learned Counsel submitted that the investigation of the case is already completed and the charge sheet is also filed. He submitted that by imposing reasonable conditions, the petitioner may be admitted to bail.

As against this, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State, during the course of the arguments, submitted that the investigating officer has collected materials during investigation and he has recorded the statement of many witnesses, who have stated that the petitioner and her husband have cheated the public and caused loss to them. Hence, he submitted that the petitioner is not entitled to be released on bail.

I have perused the averments made in the bail petition, FIR, complaint and the other materials on record. I have also perused the investigation materials produced by the learned HCGP. It is the contention of the prosecution that accused No. 1 Prabhakar advertised in the Deccan Herald news paper stating that he is the owner of Amaragiri Financial Services and that he will provide loan on the basis of the property documents. The witnesses in their statement collected by the investigating officer during investigation have not only made allegations against accused No. 1, who is the husband of the petitioner, but they have also made allegations against the petitioner stating that she has induced the public in collecting amount stating that they will give loan on the basis of the property documents. Though there is material produced by the prosecution even in respect of the petitioner accused-No. 2, investigation of the case is already completed and the charge sheet is also filed. The offence alleged is exclusively triable by the Court of Magistrate and it is not punishable for death or imprisonment for life. The petitioner is a woman aged about 42 years, which is not disputed by the other side. I am of the opinion that to secure the presence of the petitioner during trial before the trial Court, some stringent conditions may be imposed and she can be admitted to bail.

In the result, the petition is allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be released on bail of the offence punishable u/s 420 read with Section 34 of IPC registered in respondent police station Crime No. 393/2013 subject to following conditions:-

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

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

III. The petitioner shall attend the concerned Court regularly.