SHRI VISHAL ANAND Vs. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned High Court Government Pleader, appearing for the respondent-State.

(2.) The petitioners are before this Court, praying that they be enlarged on bail in the event of their arrest by the respondent-Police in Crime No.183/2011, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 419, 420, 468, 471 and 109 R/w Section 34 of IPC.

(3.) It is submitted that, earlier the petitioners had approached the Court of the Prl. Sessions Judge, Kalaburagi in Crl.Misc.No.1499/ 2017 under the provision of Section 438 of Cr.P.C, seeking anticipatory bail and that the learned Prl. Sessions Judge has been pleased to reject the same on the ground that the petitioners have been absconding. It is submitted that the said finding is without basis, and that the person can be declared as an absconder only in the event of Court issuing summons or warrant and the accused failing to comply with the same. It is submitted that the petitioners had never been to Kalaburagi and they are permanently residing in Mumbai and that they are the Directors of the Firm that had taken the Multiplex Cinema Complex at Aland Road, Kalaburagi on lease for the purpose of exhibiting cinema. That the same was in accordance with lease deed and that the premises was leased by the landlord M/s. Shetty Constructions. That prior to the execution of the lease, the defacto complainant, the owner had applied to the District Magistrate under application dated 04.10.2006 in Form No.III for the purpose of exhibiting the cinemas in the theater. That after the understanding with the Firm of the petitioners, the application came to be withdrawn on 16.11.2006 and that thereafter vide Annexure-A, the Firm of which petitioners are Directors made an application to the District Magistrate and vide proceedings dated 16.11.2016 the Firm was permitted to exhibit cinemas in the multiplex theater and the Firm was also registered with the Department of Taxes vide Annexure-H. That the Firm namely, Fun Multiplex Private Ltd. continued exhibiting cinemas upto the end of the lease period i.e., 2011 and that thereafter the defacto complainant appears to have filed a complaint about which the petitioners were totally unaware. He would submit that the defacto complainant attempted to extract more money and for the renewal of the lease and as they failed to accede to Firm, the demands and the decision of the firm to stop the business with the complainant, the complainant had lodged a motivated complaint.