Sri. Uday Kumar R vs. The State Of Karnataka

Facts

The petitioner, Sri. Uday Kumar R, is seeking anticipatory bail in connection with Crime No. 132/2022 registered at Dabbespet Police Station. The case involves allegations of impersonation as GST officers and extortion. The complainant, Rajendra Kotiyan, alleged that his driver, Jitendra Singh, was transporting a printing machine for repair when two individuals on a motorbike, claiming to be GST officers, stopped the vehicle. They alleged the machine was transported without an E-way bill and demanded GST and penalty amounting to over Rs. 2,40,000/-. Subsequently, they demanded a bribe of Rs. 1,50,000/-, which was later settled at Rs. 1,15,000/-. This amount was transferred by the driver and given to the accused. The complainant later realized the individuals were not GST officers and had cheated him. The police are attempting to arrest the petitioner and another accused (Accused No. 2). Accused No. 2 has surrendered and been released on bail.

Held

The Court held that the petitioner is not entitled to anticipatory bail. The facts revealed that the petitioner and Accused No. 2 impersonated GST officers, demanding E-way bills and threatening fines and penalties. They then demanded a bribe of Rs. 1,50,000/-, which was agreed upon at Rs. 1,15,000/- and received through online transfer and via a petrol bunk manager. The Court found that the petitioner's role in impersonating public servants (attracting Section 419 of IPC), extracting money through extortion (Section 384 of IPC), and cheating the complainant (Section 420 of IPC) is evident from the records. The Court noted that Accused No. 2 had surrendered and been released on bail, but no documentation was produced to prove the entire amount was seized from his possession. The Court concluded that the petitioner's involvement in the serious offense of impersonation and extortion necessitates custodial interrogation for effective investigation. The delay in lodging the complaint was not considered a sufficient ground for granting bail. The Court also stated that if the petrol bunk official was involved, it would be for the Trial Court to consider adding them as an accused under Section 319 of Cr.P.C.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, considering the allegations of impersonation as GST officers and extortion? The petitioner's counsel argued that the petitioner is innocent and falsely implicated, with no evidence beyond being a friend of Accused No. 2. It was contended that Accused No. 2 was arrested, and the entire amount was recovered, with a petrol bunk manager, who allegedly received part of the money, being made a witness instead of an accused. The counsel also pointed to a one-month delay in lodging the complaint and the petitioner's responsibility to care for his aged father. The respondent-State, through the learned HCGP, strongly objected to the bail petition, praying for its rejection.