RAJENDRA BANDUJI PATIL Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is filed by the accused Nos.1 to 15 under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. seeking anticipatory bail in Katkol Police Station Crime No.9 of 2020 for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 323, 406, 409, 420, 504 and 506 read with Section 149 of IPC directing the Police to release the petitioners on bail in the event of their arrest.

(2.) The brief factual matrix of the case as stated in the petition are that, on the complaint filed by Sri Sangappa Shivasangappa Kankanameli, the Police have registered the case. The allegations are that, the complainant being the owner of the trucks had entered into an agreement with the Management of the Factory by name Shri Shivasagar Sugar and Agro Products Ltd., Udapudi . It is the case of the complainant that, in the year 2014, the Management of the factory had agreed to engage the trucks for transportation of the sugarcane, in this regard, an agreement was executed by the complainant in favour of the factory. At the time of execution of the agreement, the factory had insisted for advance amount. The said amount was arranged by the complainant by borrowing loan from the bank for which the factory itself was the guarantor for the said loan. The loan sanctioned to the complainant was received by the factory. Thereafter, the management of the factory had failed to give the advance amount to the complainant. Despite compliance of all the conditions of the agreement, the management of the factory had failed to pay the advance amount as loan. On enquiry by the complainant, they assured that the matter would be settled. Inspite of repeated requests and reminders the petitioners failed to fulfill their part of the obligation. When the complainant approached the petitioners, they have abused and assaulted him and have also threatened to takeaway his life. In pursuance of the said complaint, the Police have registered the case. On registering the case, Police officials are making attempts to arrest the petitioners.

(3.) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Additional Advocate General assisted by learned counsel for the complainant. Perused the prosecution records available at this stage.