Learned HCGP takes notice for respondent-State.

This criminal petition is filed by the petitioner-accused

under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

(hereinafter referred as the ‘Cr.P.C.’ for short) for granting

anticipatory bail in Crime No.109/2022 of Dharwad Sub-

Urban Police Station for the offences punishable under

Sections 406 and 420 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter

referred to the ‘IPC’, for short).

2.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and

learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent-State.

3.

The

case

of

the

prosecution

is

that

one

Shanmukhagouda Patil has filed complaint to the Police on

24.05.2022. It is alleged in the complaint that in the year

2020, he approached the petitioner who is running computer

shop by name Shri Enterprises near Tahasildar office and paid

insurance premium of Rs.6,475/- for weather based Mangos

3

insurance crop and received acknowledgment for having paid

Rs.6,475/- towards weather based Mango crops insurance.

Subsequently, in the year 2022, he has filed application for

compensation for crop loss. Now insurance claims and

compensation for crop loss have been announced and in the

list, the complainant’s name is not there. Complainant

enquired the Joint Director of Horticulture and came to know

that

insurance amount is not deposited. Complainant

enquired the petitioner/accused. Petitioner dogged the matter

by telling some reasons and later he refused to give the

money and told that whatever you want to do, you can do.

Hence, complainant has lodged the complaint before Police.

After registering the complaint, Police are trying to arrest the

petitioner/accused. He has filed bail application before IV

Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Dharwad and the same

came to be rejected. Hence, petitioner/accused is before this

Court seeking anticipatory bail.

4.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that

petitioner is innocent of the alleged offences. Because of

4

technical error in computer, amount has not transferred. He

has already issued the acknowledgment for having received

the amount towards insurance premium. There is a delay in

filing the complaint. He is ready to abide by the conditions

imposed by this court and also co-operate with investigation.

Hence, prays to reject the petition.

5.

Per contra, Learned HCGP objected the bail

petition. Accused person is required for investigation. Hence,

prays to reject the bail petition.

6.

Having heard the learned counsel for petitioner

and learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent-

State, perused the records.

7.

On perusal of the records, it reveals that amount

of Rs.6475/-is paid by complainant to the petitioner towards

insurance premium for weather based Mangos. But, the

petitioner not at all transferred the amount to the Insurance

company and not obtained any

policy, thereby mis-

appropriated the amount and also cheated complainant.

Complainant

not

only

lost

Rs.6,475/-

but

also

lost

5

compensation towards loss of weather based mango crop.

Because of the act of the petitioner, complainant suffered loss

of cash as well as crop and not able to get compensation. It

appears, petitioner might have committed similar offence and

cheated the various formers who came for paying crop

insurance

premium.

Therefore,

matter

requires

to

be

investigated by Police. There may be some rocket behind it.

Petitioner might have committed similar offence as in the

case

on

hand.

Petitioner

is

required

for

custodial

interrogation. Hence, petitioner is not entitled for grant of

anticipatory bail.

Accordingly, petition is dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

HMB