0

K’taka High Court grants relief to Accused after nearly 3 years due to Failure of Witness testimony to provide Incriminating Evidence.

Blog , , , ,

CASE TITLE – Salman Chirik v. State of Karnataka

CASE NUMBER – CP NO.3782 OF 2024

DATED ON – 14.05.2023

QUORUM – Justice H.P. Sandesh

 

FACTS OF THE CASE

This petition was a successive bail petition of the Petitioner, who is accused the No.3. The Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka earlier in Crl.P.No.9818/2021, in view of the filing of the charge sheet, granted liberty to the petitioner to approach the Trial Court. The petitioner also approached this Court in Crl.P.No.7785/2022 and the same was rejected vide order dated 21.11.2022, on merits. The petitioner once again approached the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka by filing a fresh petition in Crl.P.No.2600/2023 and the Court rejected the same vide order dated 14.06.2023, but with liberty to approach this Court after examination of the eye-witnesses.

 

ISSUES

Whether the evidence on record against the Petitioner/Accused No.3, is adequate to deny bail.

 

CONTENTIONS BY THE PETITIONER

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the injured witnesses, as well as the eye-witnesses have been examined before the Trial Court as P.W.1 to P.W.7 and none of them have supported the case of the prosecution and during the course of cross-examination also, nothing was elicited from their mouth and nothing is there to appreciate in the matter on merits. He also brought to light that the Accused No.1 in the same case, facing similar charges was enlarged on bail by this same Court vide order dated 29.07.2022, and stated that the Petitioner in turn had been in Custody for 2 years and 8 months. He further went on to mention that Accused Nos.5 and 7 and this Petitioner are in custody and other than this petitioner and accused Nos.5 and 7, all are on bail. The learned counsel argued that in view of the injured witnesses and eye-witnesses who have not supported the case of the prosecution, the Court has to enlarge the petitioner on bail.

 

CONTENTIONS BY THE RESPONDENT

The learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent State submitted that the charges levelled against the Petitioner is different and the evidence on record is different. Hence, the petitioner is not entitled to bail.

 

COURT ANALYSIS AND JUDGEMENT

The Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka after hearing the arguments of both the parties, looked into the depositions of the injured witnesses and eye-witnesses. They stated P.W.1 to P.W.3, who have sustained injuries in the incident, though P.W.1 stated that when he went to pacify the Galata, he had sustained injuries on above the left eye, but he says that the accused persons were not there in the spot and his brother and Yasin were not subjected to assault by this petitioner. P.W.2 stated that someone had inflicted injury on his cheek and the said person is not before the Court. He was subjected to cross-examination and nothing had elicited from his mouth either. P.W.3 though says that he was also assaulted, none of the accused persons, who were present before the Court assaulted him and he had turned hostile. P.W.4 to P.W.7 are the eye-witnesses. The Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka stated that they have also not stated anything about the incriminating evidence about the petitioner herein and that when such being the material on record and when the eye-witnesses and the injured witnesses have been examined, in the absence of incriminating evidence, the petitioner is entitled for bail and the Criminal Petition was allowed, certain to some conditions, those being: (i) The petitioner shall execute his personal bond for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only) with two sureties for the like-sum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court. (ii) The petitioner shall not indulge in tampering the prosecution witnesses. (iii) The petitioner shall appear before the jurisdictional Court on all future hearing dates, unless exempted by the Court for any genuine cause. (iv) The petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Trial Court without prior permission of the Court till the case registered against him is disposed of.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Judgement Reviewed by – Gnaneswarran Beemarao

Click here to view full Judgement

0

Karnataka High Court Grants Anticipatory Bail in Alleged Forgery and Cheating Case: Property Sale Transaction

Blog, Karnataka High Court , , ,

Karnataka High Court Grants Anticipatory Bail in Alleged Forgery and Cheating Case: Property Sale Transaction

Case title: SUMAN @ SUMAN N P VS STATE OF KARNATAKA

Case no.: CRIMINAL PETITION NO.4180 OF 2024

Dated on: 16nd May 2024

Quorum:  Hon’ble. MR JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH

FACTS OF THE CASE

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.438 CR.P.C PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN THE EVENT OF HIS ARREST IN CR.NO.116/2024 OF JAYANAGAR P.S., BENGALURU CITY FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 R/W 34 OF IPC AND ETC. This petition is filed by the petitioner/accused No.1 seeking the relief of anticipatory bail under Section 438 of Cr.P.C in the event of his arrest in Cr.No.116/2024 of Jayanagar police station, Bengaluru City for the offences punishable under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 read with Section 34 of IPC.

ISSUES

  1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C) in connection with Crime No. 116/2024 of Jayanagar police station, Bengaluru City.
  2. Whether the petitioner, as a consenting witness in the sale transaction, has any involvement in the alleged offences under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
  3. Whether the payment of Rs. 20 lakhs as sale consideration implicates the petitioner in the alleged offences.
  4. Whether the conditions imposed for granting anticipatory bail are appropriate and sufficient to ensure compliance with legal procedures.

LEGAL PROVISIONS

Indian Penal Code (IPC)

Section 419 – Punishment for cheating by personation: This section penalizes the act of cheating someone by pretending to be another person. The punishment can include imprisonment for up to three years, a fine, or both.

Section 420 – Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property: This section deals with cheating and inducing someone to deliver property or alter or destroy valuable security. The punishment can include imprisonment for up to seven years and a fine.

Section 467 – Forgery of valuable security, will, etc.: This section addresses the act of forgery related to valuable securities, wills, and other significant documents. The punishment can be life imprisonment or imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years, and also a fine.

Section 468 – Forgery for purpose of cheating: This section pertains to forgery committed specifically with the intent to cheat. The punishment can include imprisonment for up to seven years and a fine.

Section 471 – Using as genuine a forged document or electronic record: This section penalizes the use of any forged document or electronic record as if it were genuine. The punishment corresponds to the same as if the person had forged the document themselves.

Section 34 – Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention: This section addresses acts committed by multiple persons in furtherance of a common intention, making each person involved liable as if they had committed the act individually.

Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C)

Section 438 – Direction for grant of bail to person apprehending arrest:

This section allows a person to seek anticipatory bail if they anticipate being arrested for a non-bailable offense. The court can grant bail with specific conditions to ensure the person complies with legal procedures.

CONTENTIONS OF THE APPELLANT

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner herein submits that there was a lease agreement in respect of the property which is the subject matter of the sale agreement executed by the original owner in favour of the complainant wherein this petitioner signed the said document as consenting witness, but not received any amount as alleged in the complaint. The counsel for the petitioner has produced the copy of the absolute sale deed dated 15.02.2022 executed by the petitioner herein as a Power of Attorney holder on behalf of M/s Ramky Estate and Farms Private Limited in favour of one Smt. Nanjamma who represented by her GPA holder Sri Prakash H N and the said amount of Rs.20/- lakh has been paid as sale consideration in respect of the sale deed dated 15.02.2022. The counsel would vehemently contend that except the payment of Rs.20/- lakh towards sale consideration from the account of the mother-in-law of the complainant, this petitioner has not received any amount. Hence, false allegation is made against this petitioner. Hence, the counsel for the petitioner prays to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail.

CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENTS

The learned HCGP appearing for the respondent/State would vehemently contend that the amount of Rs.20/- lakh has been paid in favour of this petitioner. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties and also on perusal of the material available on record, prima facie it discloses that the amount of Rs.20/- lakh was paid in respect of the sale transaction and this petitioner is only a consenting witness to the said transaction since this petitioner is in occupation of the subject matter of the sale transaction in terms of the sale agreement executed by the Power of Attorney of the original owner. Hence, there is a force in the contention of the counsel for the petitioner that this petitioner has signed the sale agreement as consenting witness in view of possession is vested with him as a lease holder. Hence, it is a fit case to exercise the powers under Section 438 of Cr.P.C to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail.

COURT’S ANALYSIS AND JUDGEMENT

The petition is allowed. Consequently, the petitioner/accused No.1 shall be released on bail in the event of his arrest in connection with Crime No. Cr.No.116/2024 of Jayanagar police station, Bengaluru City for the offences punishable under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 read with Section 34 of IPC, subject to the following conditions: –

  • The petitioner shall surrender himself before the Investigating Officer within ten days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order and shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) with two sureties for the like-sum to the satisfaction of the concerned Investigating Officer.
  • The petitioner shall not indulge in tampering the prosecution witnesses.
  • The petitioners shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Court without prior permission till the disposal of the case.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Judgement Reviewed by – HARIRAGHAVA JP

Click here to read the judgement