M/S. Bharathi Electricals vs. State Of Karnataka

Facts

Two criminal petitions were filed before the High Court of Karnataka seeking anticipatory bail. Petitioners in CRL.P No. 927/2024 are M/s. Bharathi Electricals and M/s. Aryan Trading Co., represented by their proprietors. Petitioners in CRL.P No. 859/2024 are four individuals associated with Sahyadri Electro Controls (India) Pvt. Ltd. The petitions were filed in connection with Crime No. 453/2023, registered at Rajagopalnagar Police Station for offences under Sections 403, 406, 408, 419, 477A, 417, and 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The allegations stem from a private complaint filed by the Director of Sahyadri Electro Controls (India) Pvt. Ltd., who is also the complainant in the FIR. The dispute involves the purchase of electrical spare parts worth Rs. 1,25,00,000/- using allegedly fake bills and false information, and misuse of the complainant's email account.

Held

The Court allowed both petitions, granting anticipatory bail to all petitioners. The primary reasoning was that the complainant had resigned from the company prior to filing the complaint, casting doubt on the allegations of misappropriation. Furthermore, the existence of a civil suit filed by the petitioners against the complainant for breach of copyright and patent, with a temporary injunction granted in their favour, suggested that the criminal complaint might be a consequence of professional rivalry. Regarding petitioners accused Nos. 5 & 6, the Court found that they had supplied goods as per company orders, supported by GST statements. The Court also noted that the offences alleged were not exclusively punishable with death or life imprisonment, and that the dispute was already being agitated in a civil court. Therefore, the Court found no impediment to granting anticipatory bail, subject to conditions. The petitioners were directed to execute personal bonds of Rs. 50,000/- with one surety each, surrender before the Investigating Officer within fifteen days, not tamper with witnesses, not indulge in similar offences, and make themselves available for interrogation.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioners are entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) in connection with Crime No. 453/2023, registered for offences under Sections 403, 406, 408, 419, 477A, 417, and 506 read with Section 34 of the IPC? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioners contended that the complainant had resigned from the company on 04.10.2023, making his allegations of misappropriation questionable. They also presented evidence of a civil suit (O.S. No. 1267/2023) filed by them against the complainant for breach of copyright and patent, wherein a temporary injunction was granted in their favour. For petitioners accused Nos. 5 & 6, it was argued that they supplied goods as per company orders, reflected in GST statements, and that the complaint appeared to be a result of professional rivalry. They also noted that the alleged offences are not exclusively punishable with death or life imprisonment. Revenue's arguments: The judgment does not explicitly record arguments made by the State (Revenue) in opposition to the anticipatory bail petitions. However, the presence of the State Public Prosecutor indicates their involvement in opposing the petitions.