The main legal point established in the judgment is that specific allegations and the need for effective investigation can influence the court's decision in bail petitions.

JUDGMENT

1. This petition is filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. praying this Court to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest in respect of Crime No. 797/2021 registered by Whitefield CEN Crime Police Station, Bengaluru City, for the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 of IPC.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State.

3. The factual matrix of the case of the prosecution is that the complainant is a builder. He was in need of money and in order to avail the finance, he contacted this petitioner and documentation was done in Delhi for getting an amount of Rs. 125 Crores. It is also the case of the complainant that an amount of Rs. 4,53,35,000/- was paid in favour of different persons and even though collected the said amount, the petitioner did not make any arrangement of loan as agreed and the petitioner along with other persons cheated the complainant. It is also given the details of payment of Rs. 31,25,000/- transferred to M/s. Paras Enterprises in Kotak Mahindra Bank and also Rs. 2.5 Crores towards the duty and registration fees for registering the loan agreement at Thailand and the same was transferred to the accounts of CCCL's Associates in India. An amount of Rs. 60 lakhs to Ellora Enterprises having its account in IDBI Bank, Thakur Village, Kandivali, Mumbai Branch. Rs. 60 lakhs to Astrid Trading Company having its account in IDBI Bank, Mumbai. Rs. 65 lakhs to Ozone Traders having its account in IDBI Bank and the same is also at Mumbai Branch. Rs. 65 lakhs to Vista Trading Company having its account in IDBI Bank, Mumbai Branch. Inspite of receipt of the amount, the petitioner did not arrange the loan as agreed and the amount which was paid was also drawn and committed fraud on the complainant and hence requested for taking action against this petitioner as well as other accused persons.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would vehemently contend that the documentation was done at Delhi and this petitioner is a resident of Mumbai. The allegation is that this petitioner impersonated and opened fictitious account and drawn the amount and in order to substantiate the same, no material is placed before the Court. The amounts are paid in favour of six persons and not to the petitioner and this petitioner never impersonated and hence the petitioner is entitled for bail.

5. Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State would submit that the petitioner impersonated as Rajdeep Mittal and opened the account in different names and collected an amount of more than Rs. 4.5 Cores and the same is withdrawn through one Praveen Agarwal, who gave the statement before the police that this petitioner informed that Raffle's Residency Pvt. Ltd., applied for Bangkok loan and in order to process the same, they have paid the process fee and stamp duty and he is in need of money and hence requested him to draw the amount by way of cash. This petitioner was having acquaintance with the said Praveen from last 25 years and when he replied that he has to pay the tax for having received the amount and drawn and paid to him, he instructed to send the amount to the account of Krishna Kumar Gupta and in turn Krishna Kumar Gupta also agreed for the request of this petitioner and hence it is clear that an amount of more than Rs. 4.5 Crores was drawn by this petitioner. The learned counsel submits that the complainant went and met this petitioner and now he claims that his name as Sanjay Omprakash Sharma, but he transacted with the complainant claiming that his name as Rajdeep Mittal and now in order to avoid facing the criminal action telling lie and when the police went and made an enquiry, he replied rudely and thereafter approached this Court by filing a petition under Section 438 of Cr.P.C.

6. Having heard the respective learned counsel and also on perusal of the material available on record, s