V. Venktesh vs The State

Budihal R.B., J.—This is the petition filed by the petitioner-accused u/s 438 of Cr. PC 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 u/s 420, 504 & 506, R/w Section 34 of IPC registered by the respondent-police in Crime No. 22/2014.

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

Learned counsel for the petitioner during the course of his argument submitted that the allegations of the complainant against the petitioner is that the petitioner got opened the account in the name of the complainant and got transferred an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/-, stating that it is required for the construction of building of the complainant and thereby, he has cheated the complainant. The counsel made the submission that it is the complainant who himself borrowed the loan by opening the loan account and false allegations are made against the present petitioner. Further, the counsel submitted that this amount said to have been got transferred on 11.03.2009. Whereas, the complaint has been filed in the year 2014, which is at the belated stage and there is a delay, which is not properly explained. He also made the submission that the petitioner is innocent and not committed the alleged offences. Hence, he submitted by imposing reasonable conditions, he may be admitted to bail as he is a Class-1 contractor and he has to attend to his contract work.

As against this, learned High Court Government Pleader during the course of his argument submitted that the matter is under investigation. Investigating Officer has to collect some more materials and the material collected so far, prima facie goes to show the involvement of the present petitioner in the commission of the alleged offences. Hence, he submits to reject the bail.

I have perused the averments made in the bail petition, FIR, complaint and other materials placed on record. As it is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that there is a delay in lodging the complaint in respect of the alleged offences which said to have been committed on 11.03.2009 itself. It is contended by the petitioner in the petition that he has not committed the alleged offences and he is innocent and ready to abide by any reasonable conditions to be imposed by this Court. The alleged offences are not exclusively punishable with death or imprisonment for life and the alleged offences are triable by the Magistrate Court. It is contended by the present petitioner that he is a Class-1 contractor and he has to attend to his contract work and if he is not granted with bail, it will affect his contract work. Therefore, looking to these materials on record, particularly, delay in lodging the complaint, I am of the opinion that the petitioner may be admitted to anticipatory bail by imposing reasonable conditions.

Accordingly, petition is allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be released on bail for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 504, 506 r/w. Section 34 of IPC registered by the respondent-police in Crime No. 22/2014, subject to the following conditions:

(i) The petitioner shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs. 25,000/-(Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) with one solvent surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the concerned Court;

(ii) The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly tamper with any of the prosecution witnesses;

(iii) The petitioner shall make available himself to the Investigating Officer for interrogation whenever called for; and

(iv) The petitioner shall appear before the concerned Court within thirty days from the date of this order and execute the personal bond and also the surety bond.