Veerabhadra. G vs. State Of Karnataka By

Facts

The petitioner, Veerabhadra. G, filed a criminal petition seeking regular bail in connection with Crime No. 78/2022 registered at Indiranagar Police Station for offences under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code. This was a second bail application, as a previous one (Crl.P.No.5521/2022) was rejected on June 29, 2022, with liberty to approach the court after the charge sheet was filed. The previous order noted that the petitioner, an auditor, had not paid Rs. 1,23,25,200/-. The current petition was filed after the charge sheet was submitted. The dispute involves allegations of non-payment of GST amounts.

Held

The Court allowed the petition and granted bail to the petitioner. The Court noted that a previous bail petition was rejected with liberty to reapply after the charge sheet filing, which has now occurred. While the dispute centers on the non-payment of GST, the petitioner's counsel argued it was a hand loan transaction, though no document was placed to substantiate this claim. The State also did not place specific material regarding the petitioner's role as an auditor in this context. However, Annexure-F indicated a hand loan transaction. The Court reasoned that the completion of investigation and filing of the charge sheet meant the dispute over whether it was a hand loan or GST non-payment issue is a matter for trial. Therefore, exercising discretion in favor of the petitioner was deemed appropriate. The petitioner was ordered to furnish a personal bond of Rs. 2,00,000/- with two sureties, not tamper with witnesses, appear on all future hearing dates, and not leave the jurisdiction of the Trial Court without permission.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to be enlarged on bail in Crime No. 78/2022, considering the charge sheet has been filed? (Mixed question of law and fact, turning on Section 439 of Cr.P.C. and principles of bail). Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner contended that Annexure-F, a document showing conversations regarding a hand loan and its refund, demonstrates a transaction between the petitioner and the complainant that was not solely related to entrusted work. He argued that since the investigation is complete and a charge sheet is filed, further custodial interrogation is unnecessary. He also claimed the complainant changed their version regarding payments and GST allegations within six days. Respondent's (State) Arguments: The State argued that Annexures clearly show the petitioner has not paid the GST amount. They stated that the complainant issued a notice after receiving a reply from the department, and this constitutes substantial material against the petitioner, warranting dismissal of the bail petition.