M S SUJATHA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is the petition filed by the petitioners-accused under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. seeking anticipatory bail and to direct the respondent-police to release the petitioners on bail in the event of arrest of the petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 354, 420, 504, 506(B) read with Section 34 of the IPC registered in the respondent-police station in Crime No. 250/2013. The brief facts of the case as per the averments made in the complaint are that complainant and petitioner No. 1 were the tenants under the same building along with their respective family members since many years and known to each other. Petitioner No. 1 along with her family members and their friends have received a sum of Rs. 25,00,000/- to Rs. 30,00,000/- from the complainant herein in order to doubling the amount by opening a new company and thereby cheated the complainant to the tune of Rs. 15,00,000/-. On the complaint filed by the complainant, the case has been registered against the petitioners.

(2.) Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and also the learned H.C.G.P. for the respondent-State.

(3.) Perused the averments made in the bail petition, FIR, complaint and order passed by the FTCXV Court at Bangalore on the bail application and also perused the other materials. The allegation of the complainant as against the petitioners and more particularly against the petitioner No. 1 is that she received the amount assuring that she will double the amount and pay the doubled amount to the complainant and thereby she has cheated the complainant. Looking to the averments made in the bail petition, the petitioners contended that they are innocent and they were not at all concerned to the alleged offences and they have undertaken that they are ready to abide to any conditions imposed by the Court. Looking to the offences alleged and they are all triable by the Court of Magistrate and they are not exclusively punishable with death or imprisonment of life, the only apprehension of the prosecution is that in case if anticipatory bail is granted, petitioners may abscond and may tamper the prosecution witnesses. Thus, the apprehension of the prosecution may be safeguarded by imposing any reasonable conditions as the offences are triable by the Court of Magistrate and not exclusively punishable with death or imprisonment of life. Petitioners have also submitted that they are not involved in the offences alleged, hence I am of the opinion that it is a fit case to exercise the discretion in favour of the petitioners. Looking on the records petitioners have also made out a case that they are having the apprehension of their arrest at the hands of the respondent-police. Hence, petition is allowed. Respondent-police are directed to release the petitioners on bail in the event of their arrest for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 354, 420, 504, 506B read with Section 34 of the IPC registered in the respondent-police station in Crime No. 250/2013 subject to the following conditions: