Sri Ravindra T. vs State of Karnataka

H.S. Kempanna, J.—The petitioner, who is arrayed as A3 in Crime No. 448/12 on the file of the respondent/police registered for the offences u/ss. 463, 464, 465, 420, 120B r/w. 34 of IPC, is before this Court seeking for grant of Anticipatory Bail. The respondent/police on the basis of the complaint filed u/s. 200 of Cr. P.C. by the complainant-Balakrishna H.N., referred for investigation u/s. 156(3)(c) of Cr. P.C., have registered the above case against the petitioners and have taken up investigation.

It is alleged among other things in the complaint, the petitioner and two others have established a Company under the name and style Shambala Value Systems Pvt. Ltd. which is situated at No. 98/a, II floor, Venus Complex, 10th cross, 7th Block, Jayanagar, Bangalore 560 082. The complainant is a Businessman, A1, A2 in the case are his family friends and A3 is a Chartered Accountant. A1 to A3 had approached him to start a business undertaking for distribution of mobile phones in Karnataka and accordingly, he agreed for the same. Thereafter the aforementioned Company came to be established under the guidance of A3 and it was registered in the office of the Registrar of Companies. It is further alleged the complainant and the other three accused had invested a sum of Rs. 37,33,883/- each for carrying on the business. They had also assured him that they would make him as a Director of the Company. After the Company was established, some difference arose between the complainant on the one hand and the accused on the other hand in respect of issuance of a cheque by the complainant in favour of one Manipal Enterprises. The said cheque was bounced and criminal action was initiated by the said Manipal Enterprises, in whose favour cheque was issued, against the complainant only. At that point of time the complainant came to know that he has not been inducted as a Director in the Company established. He is only held as a shareholder. It is further alleged that before the Registrar of Companies he was shown as a Director by forging his signature on the documents to be submitted for the said purpose. Therefore, he filed the complaint alleging that by forging his signature he is shown as the Director in the Company established by them and they have also not returned the entire amount invested by him at the time it was started.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits even taking the entire allegations prima facie as it is having regard to the offences alleged since they are not punishable with extreme penalties, the petitioner is entitled to the relief of Anticipatory Bail.

As against this the learned HCGP vehemently opposed the application filed by the petitioner.

5 The offences alleged against the petitioner and two others in the case are under u/ss. 463, 464, 465, 120B r/w. 34 of IPC. The gist of the allegation in the complaint is that his signature has been forged by the accused in the case to make him show as a Director of the Company established by them. Apart from the same they have not returned the initial amount of Rs. 37,33,883/- in toto. Having regard to the allegations made in the complaint, the offences for which the case is registered as the petitioner claims that he hails from a respectable family having deep roots in the society, I do not find any justifiable ground to decline his request.

Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:-

ORDER

i) The Petition is allowed;

ii) The petitioner in the event of his arrest in Crime No. 448/2012 of Jayanagar police station, the said police are directed to release him on bail on his executing a personal bond in a sum of Rs. 50,000/- with one surety for the like sum to the satisfaction of the said police subject to the following conditions:-

1) He shall appear before the respondent/police for the purposes of his arrest and release on or before 30.11.2013;

2) He shall not tamper with the prosecution witnesses;

3) He shall make himself available to the Investigating Agency as and when required for the purposes of investigation.