Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
V. Srishananda, J.
Dharmendra A.N. - Appellant
Versus
State of Karnataka - Respondent
Criminal Petition No. 1606/2022
Decided On : 23-03-2022
Anticipatory Bail - Criminal Law - IPC 120B, 406, 420, 465, 468, 471 r/w Sec. 34 - The court emphasized the protection of personal liberty while considering the request for anticipatory bail. It balanced the need for custodial investigation with the right of the accused, ultimately allowing the petition with conditions to join the investigation and be enlarged on bail.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought anticipatory bail in a case involving misappropriation of funds. The police were investigating the matter, and the petitioner had been denied bail by the District Court.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that while custodial investigation was necessary, the right of the petitioner could not be easily taken away. It balanced the need of the prosecution agency with the petitioner's rights and allowed the petition with specific conditions.
Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioner should be granted anticipatory bail in a case involving misappropriation of funds.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the protection of personal liberty and the need to balance the rights of the accused with the requirements of the investigation. It considered the delay in the investigation and the role of the petitioner in the alleged offenses.
Final Decision: The court allowed the petition, directing the petitioner to join the investigation and be enlarged on bail with specific conditions.
JUDGMENT
V. Srishananda, J. - Heard Sri Jayakumar S. Patil, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Vishwamurthy, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State and perused the records.
2. The present petition is filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C., with the following prayer:
"WHEREFORE, the Petitioner humbly prays that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to grant anticipatory bail to the Petitioner and direct the Respondent police to release him on bail in the event of his arrest in Crime No. 8/2021 of Sheshadripuram Police Station, Bangalore City, for the alleged offences punishable under section 120B, 406, 420, 465, 468, 471 r/w Sec. 34 of IPC, against the order dated 28/09/2021 passed by LXVII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bangalore (CCH 68) in Crl. Misc. No. 2873/2021 to meet the ends of justice."
3. Brief facts of the case are as under:
One Sri Brijmohan K.S., a Businessman, lodged a complaint against the present petitioner and others in Seshadripuram Police Station, which is registered in Crime No. 8/2021 on 27.02.2021 for the offences punishable under Sections 120B, 406, 420, 465, 468 and 471 read with Section 34 IPC.
4. The complaint averments further reveals that the complainant is the partner of M/s. Khoday Eshwarsa & Sons, having registered office at No. 9, Seshadri Road, Bengaluru, is a partnership firm and complainant is a partner, and they have a Excise licence to manufacture and market Indian made Foreign liquor. The authority to do the affairs of the said company is by Sri K.L.A. Padmanabhaa and Sri K.L. Swamy, who are looking after the companies Bank account and was having signing authority. Thereafter, it is noticed that there is a account in the Canara Bank, Avenue Road Branch, wherein the amount in the firm was misappropriation. Subsequent thereto, it has been noticed that in the year 2020 August, the products are not supplied to the retail business people and as such, this mis-appropriation came to be noticed.
5. After registering the complaint, the police are investigating the matter. One of the accused persons obtained anticipatory bail. The same was challenged by the de-facto complainant and by order dated 19.04.2021, the coordinate bench of this court, had cancelled anticipatory bail to one of the accused. Another accused has approached this court where the anticipatory bail was rejected by the District Court. In fact, the attempt made by the present petitioner to seek the grant of anticipatory bail was also turned down by the learned District Judge in Crl. Misc. 2873/2021 by order dated 28.9.2021.
6. Thereafter, the petitioner is before this court. In the petition, following grounds have been raised:
It is of submitted that the Petitioner is innocent of commission of offences. He has been falsely implicated by the police for extraneous reasons with oblique motives and the allegations made in complaint and FIR are false and concocted and created for the same.
It is submitted that the ingredients of the offences alleged in the above case are not complied.
It is submitted that the alleged offences are neither punishable with death nor imprisonment for life. The said offences are triable by the Hon'ble Magistrate.
It is submitted that the Respondent police are harassing the Petitioner and they are calling him over the phone to come to Police Station for investigation purpose or else he will be arrested by the said police. Yesterday night also they called the Petitioner and directed him to appear before the police.
It is submitted that the aforesaid averments demonstrates that the petitioner will be arrested at any moment. If he is arrested, he will be tortured, humiliated and consequently he will suffer irreparable loss and great hardship.
It is submitted that the Accused No. 1 had filed a complaint against the complainant, K.L. Swamy, Giridhar K.S. and Chandramohan in Cr. No. 26/2021 on 05.02.2021 before the Upparpet Police Station, Bangalore, for the offences punishable under section 341, 448, 3
Prima facie evidence of misappropriation and the necessity of custodial interrogation are key factors in deciding on anticipatory bail.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's discretion to grant anticipatory bail under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. based on the accused's willingness to comply with specific condition....
Article 21 of the Constitution of India provides that no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to the procedure established by law. Arrest of an offender during in....
The power of anticipatory bail should be exercised only in exceptional cases, and the duty of the learned MM to monitor the investigation is crucial in determining the entitlement to bail.
The court balanced the rights of the accused petitioner with the need for custodial investigation, allowing the criminal petition and imposing specific conditions for bail.
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
