IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 1^ST DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S RACHAIAH CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 13016 OF 2024 BETWEEN:

SRIHARI PATHAK S/O JAYARAM PATHAK AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS OCC: BUSINESS R/AT: NO. 2992/1, 3^RD MAIN V V MOHALLA, MYSORE KARNATAKA – 570 022.

(NOW IN CUSTODY)

…PETITIONER (BY SRI. RAJATH, ADVOCATE)

AND:

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY V.V. PURAM P.S, MYSORE – 570 022.

REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BENGALURU – 560 001.

…RESPONDENT (BY SRI. THEJAS P, HCGP)

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 439 CR.PC (FILED U/S 483 BNSS) PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RELEASE ON REGULAR BAIL, THE PETITIONER WHO IS ARRAYED AS ACCUSED NO.2 IN C.C.NO.1236/2017 REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 34, 406 AND 420 OF IPC, ARISING OUT OF CR.NO.27/17 REGISTERD BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 V.V.PURAM P.S.

PENDING BEFORE THE LD. SR. CIVIL JUDE AND CJM, MYSORE.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S RACHAIAH ORAL ORDER

1. Heard Sri. Rajath, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri.Thejas P, High Court Government Pleader for the respondent – State.

2. The petitioner is before this Court seeking grant of bail in Crime No.27/2017 of V.V.Puram Police Station, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC'), on the basis of the complaint lodged by the complainant.

Brief facts of the case are as under:-

3. It is the case of the prosecution that the complainant had entered into an agreement of sale with the petitioner in respect of flat. It is further stated that the complainant had deposited the amount stated in the agreement. Thereafter, the petitioner and others have sold the said flat to another person viz., Mr. Vijaya Cheluvaraju. Therefore, he lodged a complaint against the petitioner and others. The jurisdictional police registered a case against the petitioner and others for the offences under Sections 406, 420 read with Section 34 of IPC. The jurisdictional police after conducting the investigation submitted the charge sheet.

4. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the allegations made against the petitioner is that despite agreement of sale having been executed in favour of the complainant, the petitioner has sold the said flat to another person in order to deceive the complainant. However, there are other avenues available to the complainant to enforce the said sale agreement.

5. It is further submitted that, the transaction is civil in nature. In fact, the terms of the sale agreement has to be decided in accordance with law before the civil Court. The petitioner being a well reputed business man, he maintained good reputation in the society. However, the complainant in order to tarnish the image of the petitioner, filed this false complaint. Therefore, he may be enlarged on bail by imposing suitable conditions.

6. Per contra, learned HCGP vehemently denied the said submissions and he further submitted that there are 17 cases pending against him which are similar in nature. It is further submitted that the petitioner is an habitual offender and he has cheated many prospective purchasers. In case, if the petitioner is enlarged on bail, there may be a chance of absconding and also hampering the Court proceedings. Therefore, the plea for his bail has to be rejected. Making such submissions, learned High Court Government Pleader prays to dismiss the petition.

7. After having heard learned counsel for the respective parties and also perused the averments of the complaint, it appears that the complainant had entered into an agreement of sale and he is stated to have paid Rs.35,00,000/- to purchase the flat. However, the petitioner herein had sold the said flat to another person in order deceive the complainant.

8. On perusal of the averments of the complaint and the charge sheet, it appears that it is a matter of civil in nature. Mere pendency of the sim