VEERAPRASAD J. Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is seeking to be enlarged on bail in the event of his arrest pursuant to the proceedings in Crime No.15/2017 for the offences punishable under Sections 364A, 384, 120B, 323 and 506 of IPC.

(2.) The case of the prosecution is that the complainant employer and accused No.12 Veeraprasad.J were running a real estate business on partnership basis. It is stated that Venkatasubba Reddy and the petitioner were together and left home for their office at 8.30 a.m. on 18.01.2017. It is stated that as they did not return home, the employer's wife CW4 Krishnaveni enquired regarding the whereabouts and she was informed that he was staying in the office. Subsequently, it is stated that the mobile phone remained switched off. On the next day morning CW4 tried to call her husband and it is stated that he picked the call and told that two persons would come and collect Rs.2,00,000/-. It is stated that complainant gathered the information that her husband had been kidnapped. The complaint came to be lodged and FIR was registered, pursuant to which the investigation is complete and charge sheet has been filed. It is stated that accused No.1 to 6 have been enlarged on regular bail.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the only offence made out as against the petitioner is that at his instance, the offence was committed and he was the instigator and hence, the offence under Section 120-B has been committed by him. He further contends that the complaint is mala fide and arose out of a real estate transaction amongst the partners of the business and had been filed in order to obtain undue advantage relating to the transaction.