SASHIDHARAN B. K. Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and also the learned HCGP appearing for the State.

(2.) This successive bail petition is filed seeking anticipatory bail and earlier, this Court rejected the bail petition on 27/5/2022 in Crl.P.No.3040/2022 wherein this petitioner was the second petitioner. This Court having considered the grounds urged in the petition as well as the submission of the counsel for the State, in paragraph 7, comes to the conclusion that these persons have collected the gold to the tune of 2 kg and 614.01 grams stating that they required the same for audit purpose and the same would be returned immediately. When she did not agree for the same, they forced her to hand over the same. In the complaint, the specific allegations are made that on 22/2/2022, she gave 700 grams of gold to one Monisha, Shweta and Amar have collected 1 kg 414.01 grams of gold and on the very same day, these petitioners also came and insisted to give another 500 grams of gold and the same was given. Subsequently, they have misused the same by pledging the said gold ornaments granted loan which is mentioned in paragraph 3 of the complaint and given the names of each of the customers in whose name the loan was advanced and the same was also taken note of by this Court and in paragraph 9 this Court comes to the conclusion that it is not a fit case to exercise the discretion in favour of the petitioners under Sec. 438 of Cr.P.C. since it requires probing of the matter and to collect the evidence when there are serious allegations of crores of rupees of the finance company was misappropriated and rejected the said bail petition.

(3.) Now, the learned counsel for the petitioner in a successive bail petition would contend that there are two cases registered in Cr.Nos.76/2022 and 77/2022 and this Court in writ petition bearing W.P.No.10682/2022 directed not to file the charge sheet unless the Court permission is obtained. But there is no any stay in Cr.No.77/2022 and this petitioner has to give statement before the IO in Cr.No.76/2022 and this petitioner is also an accused in Cr.No.76/2022 and if he cannot granted bail, he cannot appear before the IO to give the statement. Hence, he may be enlarged on bail.