Thilakraj N. S. S/O. N T Srirangamurthy vs. The State Of Karnataka

Held

The Court allowed the petition for anticipatory bail. It acknowledged that the offences alleged against the petitioners were not punishable with death or imprisonment for life and that the case was based on documents. The Court noted the petitioners' undertaking to cooperate with the investigation and the absence of any criminal antecedents. While the prosecution's objection regarding hampering the investigation and tampering with witnesses was considered, the Court found that this could be addressed by imposing stringent conditions. Therefore, the Court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioners, subject to specific conditions including executing a personal bond of Rs. 1,00,000/- each with a surety, voluntarily appearing before the Investigating Officer/Court within 15 days, cooperating with the investigation, and not influencing any witnesses or obstructing the investigation.

Facts

The petitioners, Thilakraj N.S. and Sujay K., sought anticipatory bail in Crime No. 170/2021 registered at Kumta Police Station. The prosecution alleges that the petitioners, using the complainant Sanket Gajanan Naik's PAN and Aadhar cards, registered a firm named "Sanket Enterprises" and raised invoices totaling Rs. 1,35,74,713/-. They allegedly did not file GST returns, causing a loss to the government, and defrauded the complainant without his knowledge or consent. The petitioners had previously approached the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Uttara Kannada, Karwar, for anticipatory bail, which was rejected on November 19, 2021. This led to the present petition before the High Court.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioners are entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. given the nature of the alleged offences under Sections 419, 420, 465, 468, 470, and 471 read with Section 34 of the IPC, which are not punishable with death or life imprisonment? Petitioner's Argument: The learned counsel for the petitioners argued that the alleged offences are not punishable with death or imprisonment for life. They contended that the complainant's case is based on documents and the question of whether the petitioners cheated the complainant requires investigation and a final report. The petitioners expressed readiness to cooperate with the police investigation. Respondent's Argument: The learned High Court Government Pleader argued that the petitioners, by misusing the complainant's documents, opened a company in his name, conducted monetary transactions, failed to pay GST, and thereby cheated both the complainant and the government. The investigation is ongoing, and granting anticipatory bail would allow the petitioners to hamper the investigation and tamper with witnesses.