SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(Online)(KAR) 19249

HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
MR JUSTICE RAJENDRA BADAMIKAR, J
SHASHIKANTH RAMAMURTHY – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KARNATAKA – Respondent
CRL.P 2637/2024



Advocates:
SRI. PAVANA CHANDRA SHETTY H., ADVOCATE

Anticipatory bail granted due to lack of evidence against the accused and questionable conduct of the complainant.

Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 438 - Information Technology Act, 2008 - Section 66-D - Petition for anticipatory bail in a case involving allegations of fraud and forgery related to bank guarantees - The petitioners are accused of offenses under various sections of IPC including 406, 409, 420, 463, 465, 468, and 471 - The complainant alleged payment of Rs.3.34 Crores for a bank guarantee which was later deemed non-genuine, leading to a complaint against the petitioners - The court found the complainant's actions questionable, indicating he sought to purchase a bank guarantee, thus implicating his own culpability - The court concluded that the petitioners should be granted anticipatory bail subject to conditions. (Paras 1-8)

(B) Anticipatory Bail - The court discussed the requirements for granting anticipatory bail, emphasizing the absence of evidence against the petitioners and the need for just conditions to ensure cooperation with the investigation. (Paras 8)

Facts of the case:
The complainant was involved in a government project and alleged he paid the petitioners for a bank guarantee that was later rejected. The petitioners were accused of fraud related to the bank guarantee.

Findings of Court:
The court found no evidence of forgery and highlighted the complainant's questionable motives, allowing the anticipatory bail petition.

Issues: The main issues included the genuineness of the bank guarantee and the culpability of the complainant.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the lack of evidence against the petitioners and the complainant's own actions warranted granting bail.

Result: Petition allowed.

ORDER

The petitioners have filed this petition under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. seeking anticipatory bail in the event of their arrest in Crime No.455/2023 of Tumakuru Town Police Station registered for the offence punishable under Sections 406, 409, 420, 463, 465, 468 and 471 r/w. 34 of IPC and also under Section 66-D of the Information Technology Act , 2008.

2. The brief factual matrix leading to the case are that, the complainant was involved in a Central Government Project called as Jal Jeevan Mission and he was one of the successful bidders to take up the tender work with respect to Hassan Division. As a part of tender requirement, he was required to offer bank guarantee to the State Government in favour of M/s. RDW and SD, Hassan Division. The company by name M/s Zetwerk offered loan against the said bank guarantee issued through ICICI Bank. For offering Bank Guarantee, the complainant is said to have paid a sum of Rs.3.34 Crores to accused persons and the accused submitted and executed the security documents in favour of the ICICI Bank and on the basis of this bank guarantee, the amount was released in favour of M/s.Zetwerk. It is further alleged that, the petitioners/accused have collected service charges from both ICICI Bank and Karnataka Bank and later, a partial amount was released by M/s. Zetwerk to the complainant. However, later on M/s.Zetwerk refused to release the further installments on the ground that, the security documents produced to the banks as bank guarantees were not genuine. As a result, it stopped release of further payment, which has hampered the complainant to go on with the project work. As such, he filed a complaint against the petitioners for initiating certain actions. On the basis of the complaint, crime was registered in Crime No.455/2024.

3. The petitioners apprehending their arrest, have approached the learned Sessions Judge and the learned Sessions Judge has rejected the bail petition. Hence, the petitioners are before this Court.

4. Heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned HCGP for the Respondent-State. Perused the records.

5. The allegation of the prosecution discloses that, the bank guarantee were furnished by the present petitioners as well as one Henry Amalraj Amruthraj, who is arraigned as Accused No.3. Admittedly, the complainant was the highest bidder to take up the work of Jal Jeevan Mission in Hassan Division. As per the mandate of tender conditions, the complainant is required to offer bank guarantee and he alleged to have offered the bank guarantee of accused, which was subsequently rejected by the bank after initial release of part payment, on the ground that the documents were not genuine.

6. The complainant/first informant has nowhere disclosed as to why he has approached the petitioners for offering bank guarantee. Further, he alleged to have paid Rs.3.34 Crores to the petitioners and other accused, and what was the need for him to pay this amount is not explained by the first informant. On perusal of the complaint allegations, it is evident that he was incapable of securing bank guarantee and by paying certain amount, he wanted to purchase the bank guarantee by way of consideration. This action on the part of the complainant itself attracts an offence and now he cannot make allegations against the petitioners herein.

7. Even otherwise there is no evidence to show that the bank guarantee offered is pertaining to forged documents. The allegations were that the bank guarantee were not genuine. What is meant by ‘Genuine’ is not forthcoming and interestingly, the bank has not lodged any complaint regarding offering bank guarantee by creating forged documents or fabricated documents. The conduct of the first informant itself discloses that, he was incompetent to mobilize the bank guarantee and in order to over come the said deficit, he by paying consideration wanted to purchase bank guarantee. In fact, the first informant himself is g

                    Click Here to Read the rest of this document
                    1
                    2
                    3
                    4
                    5
                    6
                    7
                    8
                    9
                    10
                    11
                    SupremeToday Portrait Ad
                    supreme today icon
                    logo-black

                    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

                    qr

                    Scan Me!

                    India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

                    For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

                    whatsapp-icon Back to top