Vijay Sampath vs State

Budihal R.B, J.—Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/accused No. 2 and also heard the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State.

This is the petition filed by the petitioner/accused u/s 438 of Cr.P.C. seeking transit bail for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 420 and 120(b) of IPC registered in respondent police No. 1 Police station Crime No. 67/2013.

I have perused the averments made in the bail petition, complaint, FIR and all other materials produced in the case. Looking to the complaint averments that this petitioner along with accused No. 1 promised the complainant that they will get a seat to daughter of the complainant for the MBBS course in Comed K college and they told the complainant to pay a sum of Rs. 17 Lakhs. It is also allegation in the complaint that the petitioner and accused No. 1 told that complainant has to pay half of the amount immediately i.e., Rs. 8,25,000/- out of which a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- in cash and Rs. 3,25,000/- by way of Demand Draft in favour of comed-K and complainant has to pay the balance amount when the admission is approved. It is also the allegation that the petitioner and accused No. 1 collected amount of Rs. 8,25,000/- and there afterwards when the complainant enquired with them about the seat to his daughter they have not at all responded properly and when the complainant asked them to repay the amount for which there was no proper response. Then the complainant got issued legal notice to the petitioner and accused No. 1 in that connection.

It is the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner herein that petitioner has already left the job from the office of accused No. 1 in the year 2010, itself and further he submitted that petitioner is not all connected with the alleged offence. Learned counsel made the submission that petitioner has to go to Delhi to make an application for his release before the appropriate court, but as the respondent police are making attempt to arrest the petitioner, he is having apprehension of his arrest at the hands of the respondent police. Hence he requested for issue of Transit Anticipatory Bail in this connection. Learned counsel relied upon the decision reported in L.R. Naidu Vs. State of Karnataka, and also order passed by this Court dated 8.11.2006 in Crl. P. No. 4177/2006.

I have perused the decision cited supra, I have also perused the newspaper produced as per Annexure-A wherein photos of accused No. 1 and 2 are published and it is also mentioned that these two persons are wanted in connection with Crime No. 67/2013. Therefore, apprehension of the present petitioner well founded. The alleged offences u/s 420 and 120(b) of IPC are also not exclusively punishable with death or imprisonment of life. In the bail petition, petitioner is seeking transit anticipatory bail order only for a limited period to facilitate him to go to Delhi and to make regular bail application there.

Accordingly the petition is allowed. Respondent police are hereby directed to release the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest of the alleged offence under Sections 420 and 120(b) of IPC registered in the Respondent No. 1 police station Crime No. 67/2013, subject to following conditions.

Petitioner to execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand Only) and to furnish one surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the Arresting Authority Respondent No. 2.

The bail order is only for a limited period of one month from today.

Petitioner shall not tamper the prosecution witnesses directly or indirectly.