M. Vinayak & Others vs State Of Karnataka

K. Natarajan, J

This petition is filed by accused Nos.3 and 4 under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. for granting anticipatory bail in Crime No.46/2022 registered by the respondent Police Station, now pending on the file of 30th Additional Judge, Small Causes Court, Bengaluru in C.C. No.12032/2022 for the offences punishable under Sections 3 and 4 of Karnataka Prohibition of Charging Exorbitant Interest Act, 2004 and also Sections 323, 504, 506, 384, 342, 417, 420 read with 34 of IPC.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned HCGP for the respondent - State and perused the records.

Brief facts of the case of the prosecution is that one Sri Jayaram Bhat filed a complaint to the respondent - Police on 25.02.2022 alleging that he borrowed a loan of Rs.25,00,000/- from accused No.2 in the year 2017, at that time he has taken signature of the complainant on the blank papers and lend loan at the rate of 10% interest per annum and after sometime he started demanding 5% interest per month and even though the complainant has paid much amount towards the interest but the accused were insisting for more interest. Therefore, a complaint came to be filed against accused Nos.1 and 2. Subsequently accused Nos.1 and 2 filed a bail petition before the Sessions Judge for granting anticipatory bail and the same came to be granted. But while filing the charge-sheet, the Police inserted the names of these petitioners as accused Nos.3 and 4. The petitioners apprehending their arrest in the hands of the Police has approached the Sessions Judge for granting anticipatory bail in Crl.Misc. No.4096/2022, which came to be dismissed as not maintainable. Hence, the petitioners are before this Court.

Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned HCGP for the respondent - State and perusal of records, admittedly accused Nos.1 and 2 are the main accused, who have been granted anticipatory bail by the Sessions Judge in Crl.Misc. No.2796/2022 on 23.03.2022. The names of these petitioners were not mentioned either in the complaint or in the FIR. While filing the charge-sheet the Investigating Officer inserted the names of these petitioners as accused Nos.3 and 4 who were said to be the employees under accused Nos.1 and 2 and accused Nos.1 and 2 used to send these persons for collecting the interest.

Be that as it may, now the investigation is completed and charge-sheet has been filed. The Court has issued NBW for securing the presence of these petitioners. Petitioners approached the Sessions Judge for granting anticipatory bail. But the learned Sessions Judge rejected the bail petition only on the ground that when the charge-sheet is filed anticipatory bail petition is not maintainable. In my opinion the learned Sessions Judge committed an error in dismissing the petition only on the ground of maintainability and not on the ground of merits.

The learned counsel for the petitioners relying upon the decision of Supreme Court in the case of Bharat Chaudhary and Anr. v. State Of Bihar and Anr. - (2003) SCC, would contend that it is well settled law that even after filing the charge-sheet the power of granting anticipatory bail by the Sessions Court as well as the High Court will not be taken away. In a similar case the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the power of granting anticipatory bail can be exercised even after filing the charge-sheet. It is well settled law by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in catena of decisions that the power of entertaining the anticipatory bail petition is not taken away in spite of after filing the charge-sheet. Therefore, in my view the Sessions Judge committed error in holding that once the charge-sheet is filed anticipatory bail petition is not maintainable.

This petition is filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C., and the learned counsel not filed any revision by challenging the order of the Sessions Judge to set aside the order and to remand back, therefore, I am of the view that once the main accused were granted anticipatory bail by the Sessions Judge the question of rejecting the bail for these petitioners does not arise.

Though the alleged offences are non-bailable, but not punishable with death or imprisonment for life. Therefore, by imposing certain stringent conditions if the petitioners are granted bail no prejudice would be caused to the case of the prosecution. Hence, I pass the following:

Order

The Criminal Petition is allowed.

The respondent - Police is directed to release the petitioners-accused Nos.3 and 4 on bail in the event of their arrest in Crime No.46/2022 registered by the respondent - Police for the offences punishable under Sections 3 and 4 of Karnataka Prohibition of Charging Exorbitant Interest Act, 2004 and also Sections 323, 504, 506, 384, 342, 417, 420 read with 34 of IPC. The petitioner shall surrender before the Magistrate and shall be released on bail, subject to the following conditions:

(i) Petitioners shall execute personal bonds for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs) each, with one surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer;

(ii) Petitioners shall surrender themselves Investigating Officer/Magistrate within 15 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order;

(iii) Petitioners shall not indulge in similar offences strictly;

(iv) Petitioners shall not directly or indirectly tamper with any of the prosecution witnesses;