Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
B.A. Patil, J.
Rakesh Shetty - Appellant
Versus
State Of Karnataka - Respondent
Criminal Petition No. 5445 of 2020
Decided On : 18-11-2020
Section 438 - Anticipatory Bail - IPC 506, 120B, 465, 384, 419 - The court granted anticipatory bail to the accused No.1 in a case involving offenses under IPC Sections 506, 120B, 465, 384, 419. The court emphasized the need for a fair and unbiased investigation and imposed stringent conditions for the accused's release.
Fact of the Case:
The accused, as the Managing Director of a news channel, was alleged to have used his influence to extract money from a construction company by falsely implicating them in conversations and making false allegations through his channel. The accused sought anticipatory bail under Section 438 of Cr.P.C.
Finding of the Court:
The court considered the nature and gravity of the accusations, the accused's antecedents, and the need for a fair investigation. It emphasized the presumption of innocence and the need to protect personal liberty. The court granted anticipatory bail to the accused, imposing stringent conditions for his release.
Issues: The court considered the impact of the accused's actions on the complainant, the need for fair investigation, and the presumption of innocence.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for a fair and unbiased investigation, the presumption of innocence, and the protection of personal liberty. It granted anticipatory bail to the accused, imposing stringent conditions for his release.
Final Decision: The court granted anticipatory bail to the accused No.1, subject to stringent conditions, to ensure fair investigation and protect personal liberty.
JUDGMENT
B.A.Patil, J. - The present petition is filed by accused No.1 under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. to enlarge him on anticipatory bail in Crime No.135/20 of K.P.Agrahara Police Station, Bengaluru, for the offences punishable under Section 506, 120B, 465, 384, 419 of IPC.
2. I have heard Sri A.S.Ponnanna, learned Senior Counsel for Sri Ravikumar B.K., learned counsel for the petitioner-accused No.1; Sri V.M.Sheelavanth, learned SPP-I for respondent No.1-State; and Sri C.V.Nagesh, learned Senior Counsel for Sri P.N.Manmohan, learned counsel for respondent No.2-complainant.
3. The brief facts of the case are that petitioneraccused No.1 is the Managing Director of Power TV News Channel. Complaint's Company is engaged in construction activities and has obtained tenders from various Departments of the State and Central Governments and BDA. In respect of four different contracts of BDA, an amount of Rs.140 Crores was due to the complainant. It is further alleged that in the month of June, 2020, petitioner-accused No.1 called the complainant and asked him to meet him in his office at Mathikere. Accordingly, the complainant went and met the petitioner-accused No.1 and the complainant informed the petitioner-accused No.1 that he wants to put up an advertisement hoarding at Yelahanka at A.P.Border Troll Road which his Company has developed. While discussing, petitioner-accused No.1 also informed the complainant that he is very close to Mr.Amith Shah, the Hon'ble Minister of Home Affairs, Government of India and he is in touch with him on regular basis. He also claimed that he could help him in getting any work done either from State or Central Governments. It is further alleged in the complaint that the complainant was in constant touch with the petitioner-accused No.1 and during 4th week of June, 2020 he was persuaded to discuss with him about a tender floated by New Mangalore Port Trust in respect of construction of break water for fishing harbor at Kulai and the value of the work was around Rs.100 Crores and tender got notified on 24.9.2019. After coming to know the said information, petitioner-accused No.1 called one Mr.Parithosh Bala, Chief Engineer (Civil) New Mangalore Port Trust and spoke to him identifying himself as an Officer working in the office of Mr.Amith Shah, Hon'ble Home Minister and further told him that he has been directed by Hon'ble Home Minister to inform him that the tender submitted by M/s. Ramalingam Construction Company must be approved and granted in its favour. Subsequently, complainant after seeing, was astonished and taken aback after receiving the letter dated 29.6.2020 from New Mangalore Port Trust regarding disqualifying him from the tender process on the ground that he tried to influence the tender awarding authority.
4. It is further alleged that the petitioner-accused No.1 forced the complainant to divulge and give him the details of pending bills from various Departments of Government of Karnataka and he kept on pressurizing him to give every work details assuring him that he would personally get them cleared. He also informed the complainant that he is aware of the pending bills of the complainant's Company to the tune of Rs.140 Crores payable from BDA and he would ensure the said payment be cleared by the BDA and he should be paid 5% on the said amount.
5. It is further alleged that on 26.8.2020 BDA has cleared Rs.7.79 Crores out of pending bill of Rs.140 Crores to the Company of the complainant. Petitioneraccused No.1 contacted the complainant and insisted him by saying that the said amount has been cleared from BDA and he is entitled to get 5% of the amount as his commission. Complainant refused to pay as he was knowing the fact that the said amount was cleared by the BDA in a routine manner. It is further alleged that the petitioner-accused No.1 was in continuous touch with the complainant on regular basis and induced him to speak in a tutored manner by taking the names of several persons in the
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
