VEENA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition is filed by the petitioner -accused No. 2 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking her release on bail of the offence punishable under Sections 420 read with Section 34 of IPC registered in respondent Police Station Crime No. 393/2013.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the prosecution case are that the complainant saw an advertisement in Deccan Herald news paper given by one Amaragiri Financial Services stating that they will provide loans and contact numbers were also provided in the advertisement. The complainant contacted to the said numbers. A girl picked up the phone telling that Mr. Prabhakar, owner of Amaragiri Financial Services will provide loan on the basis of the property documents and she also gave the office address. The complainant has alleged that when he visited the said office, he saw many people holding documents for getting loan. The complainant spoke to Prabhakar -accused No. 1 and his wife -accused No. 2, the petitioner herein. They said that initial installment must be paid before grant of loan and a brochure containing loan details was given to him. The complainant has further alleged that he wanted loan of Rs. 35,00,000/ - and for that, he paid amount of Rs. 75,000/ - and got a receipt for having paid the same. When he asked for loan amount, both accused Nos. 1 and 2 informed that the property documents were not proper and instructed him to get some other property documents for sanction of loan. The complainant got frustrated and on 11.11.2013 at about 5.30 p.m., he along with his friends by name Niranjan Murthy and Srinivas went to the office of accused No. 1. On enquiry, they came to know that accused No. 1 and the petitioner -accused No. 2 have cheated many other persons and they have not provided loan by collecting amount from them. On the basis of the complaint, the case was registered by the respondent police arraying the petitioner as accused No. 2.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner, during the course of the arguments, submitted that the main allegations are against accused No. 1. Accused No. 2 is the wife of accused No. 1 She has been falsely implicated in the case and she is innocent. She has not at all committed the alleged offence. The learned Counsel submitted that the investigation of the case is already completed and the charge sheet is also filed. He submitted that by imposing reasonable conditions, the petitioner may be admitted to bail.