Shivajogappa Alur vs State of Karnataka

G. Narendra, J.—This petition is filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. seeking enlargement of petitioner on anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest in Crime No. 36/2008 of Vidyagiri Police Station.

The brief facts of the case are that one Shankaramma W/o. Bhimanagouda Desai and Bhimanagouda S/o. Chidanandappa Desai had preferred a private complaint under the provisions of Section 200 of Cr.P.C. Initially it was registered as P.C. No. 70/2007 and matter was referred to the respondent/Police by the jurisdictional Court. The respondent/Police after investigation had submitted ''B'' report.. Aggrieved by the B report, the complainants had preferred a protest petition. The Court below after considering the protest petition was pleased to reject ''B'' report and directed the registration of criminal case and the same came to be registered in C.C. No. 365/2012.

The petitioner''s counsel would submit that the petitioner is no way involved and even as per the reading of the allegations it is the first accused who appears to be the root cause for the complainants approaching the Court. The allegations are that the complainants had intended to purchase a house property bearing Plot No. 2D in Sy. No. 8B through the G.P.A. Holder of petitioner and in this regard they have entered into an agreement of sale and have also paid an advance amount of Rs. 2,25,000/- to one Ramesh Ajoodi who is arrayed as accused No. 2. It is further alleged that the G.P.A. holder of the said petitioner is alleged to have requested the proposed purchasers to continue Sri Sharad M. Kambale as tenant on payment of monthly rent of Rs. 2,000/-. As per the understanding between them if the said Sharad M. Kambale/the tenant fails to pay the rent, he would vacate and hand over the possession of the property to the complainants. It appears subsequently he tried to postpone the payment of rent and the tenant who is arrayed as first accused is alleged to have threatened the complainants with dire consequences. Based on these allegations, the petitioner''s counsel would submit the learned Magistrate having heard the matter has taken the cognizance of the complaint against the petitioner. He would further submit that after taking cognizance, the jurisdictional trial Court was pleased to pass the order dated 22.03.2014 directing to steps be taken against the accused No. 3 and has adjourned the matter to 26.04.2014 as a last chance. Thereafter, the summons have been taken out to the address shown in the complaint.

The petitioner''s counsel would submit that the petitioner is aged about 63 years and after retirement, he has shifted his residence to Bangalore in the year 2011. In support of the contention, he has produced a copy of the subscription voucher issued on behalf of the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., by one of its distributors, by name Viswanath Gas Agency. He would also furnish a copy of the affidavit submitted with the said Vishwanath Gas Agency. He further states that in view of the non service of the summons the petitioner was absent at the hearing and the learned Judge has been pleased to issue a non bilabial warrant and that he came to know about it only now. Hence, he was voluntarily approaching this Court to enable him to appear before the jurisdictional Court by grant of anticipatory bail as he apprehends that the respondent police may detain him and remand him to judicial custody.

The learned AGA would admit that the police filed a ''B'' report.

From reading of the complaint, it prima facie appears that the dispute appears to be mainly between the first accused and the complainant. Even as per the complaint averments, the complainants have clearly stated that they have entered into an agreement of sale with one Ramesh S/o. Mahadevaoppa, who is arrayed as second accused, who is the GPA holder of this petitioner. The further averment in the complaint is that the first accused postponing the payment and when they tried to vacate, the first accused with the support of second accused has resisted their demands. Apart from bald allegation against this petitioner, there is no specific accusation directed against him.

In that view of the matter, this Court is of the view that the petitioner is entitled for the grant of anticipatory bail.

The petitioner''s counsel submits that he will appear before the jurisdictional Court and seek for recall of the warrant.

Accordingly, the above petition is allowed. The respondent police are directed to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of the arrest of petitioner in the above said case, subject to the condition that the petitioners shall execute a self bond for a sum of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court.

Ordered accordingly.