High CourtsSingle Bench(2011) 01 KAR CK 0058

Rajesh Dattu Kohil vs State of Karnataka

Karnataka High Court · Decided on 24 January 2011

HON’BLE JUDGES
V. Jagannathan, J
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Petition No. 279 of 2011

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

11 paragraphs · 520 words

V. Jagannathan, J.—Petitioner is one of seven accused persons against whom, a case is registered in Cr. No. 243/09 by the Respondent-police for an offence punishable u/s 420 r/w 34 of IPC and under Sections 3 & 4 of the Prise Chits Money Circulation Scheme (Banning) Act. 1978.

2.

The allegations against the accused persons in short is that, the accused formed the Company by name ''Go Easy Online Trading India Ltd.," and gave attractive advertisements through media mentioning ''Double Dhamaka Offer Profit with Capital'' and enticed'' the public to invest the money and on suspicion, the PSI of Commercial Street police station was able to unearth the Company being bogus one and also found that the accused had collected money from the public and suo-motto complaint was lodged by him and accused No. 1 (Petitioner) was arrested.

3 Submission, of the Petitioner''s Counsel is that, if bail is granted for the limited period, the Petitioner would ensure that the amount are repaid to the public who had invested in the Company formed by the accused persons and if the Petitioner is not released on bail. he will not be able to pay the amount to the persons concerned. Therefore, release now sought is the whole intention of the accused to make good to many of the persons who had invested and also relying on the Apex Courts order passed in SLP (Cri) Nos. 19/21/2009, submission made is that the Petitioner be granted the same benefit and he would make serious efforts to pay back the amount to the persons who had invested with the Petitioner''s Company.

4.

Having thus heard the Petitioner''s Counsel and also on perusal of the order passed by the Apex Court and also the learned HCGP for the State, since the submission made is that the Petitioner would return back the amount to the persons those who had invested in his Company and also taking note of the Apex Court''s order referred to above, the Petitioner can be released on bail.

5.

In the result, petition is allowed and bail on granted to the Petitioner, subject to the following conditions:

(i) Petitioner shall be released on bail on his executing a personal bond for a sum. of Rs. 50,000/- with two solvent sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the trial court.

(ii) He shall not tamper or attempt to tamper any of the prosecution witnesses.

(iii) He shall trot give threat to the prosecution witnesses in any manner.

(iv) He shall not involve in the offence of like nature in future.

(v) He shall mark his attendance before the concerned police station on every Sunday between 10 a.m. and 3 p.m.

(vi) He shall ensure that within three months from the date of receipt of a copyof this order, he is able to pay all the persons who had invested money and if the Petitioner did not return the money to the respective persons who had invested the amount within the aforesaid period of three months, this bail order small stand cancelled automatically and the police are at liberty to re-arrest the Petitioner.