The complaint was registered for the offence punishable
under Sections 419, 420 of IPC and under Sections 66(C) and
66(D) of Information Technology Act, 2008. However, 419 of IPC is
not attracted in the instant case as there is no impersonation and
the only allegation is that inspite of receiving the amount for supply
of the goods, the petitioner has not supplied the same which is
subject to allegation of cheating. However, further records
discloses that the petitioner has subsequently remitted Rs.8 Lakhs
to the account of the complainant which is admitted by the
prosecution. The argument addressed by the learned HCGP that the google search discloses that the petitioner has cheated number of persons which is evident from the review cannot be accepted as it does not have any legal evidentiary value. {Para 6}
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.8879/2022
SRI OM PRATAP SINGH Vs THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER CYBER AND ECONOMIC WING
BEFORE
MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA BADAMIKAR
DATED: 13TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2022
ORDER
This petition is filed by the petitioner/Accused under Section
438 of Cr.P.C. seeking anticipatory bail, in the event of his arrest in
Crime No.100/2022 of Ramanagara CEN Crime Police Station,
registered for the offences punishable under Sections 419, 420 of
IPC and under Sections 66(C) and 66(D) of Information Technology
Act, 2008, pending on the file of the Prl. Civil Judge (Jr.Dn) & JMFC
Court, Magadi, Ramanagara.
2. The brief factual matrix leading to the case are that on
13.07.2022, the complainant has lodged a complaint alleging that
since last six months she was doing business of lamp oil in
respect of which, she has opened the bank account in the Axis
Bank, Kumaraswamy layout branch. It is further alleged that in
respect of manufacturing of the lamp-oil, when she searched in the
Google for liquid paraffin, she came in contact with the present
petitioner-accused who was dealing with supply of paraffin and by
e-mail transaction she initially paid Rs.52,39,400/- in two
installments by way of NEFT to the account of the petitioneraccused
but the petitioner-accused supplied the goods worth of
Rs.26,31,611/- only. Subsequently, it is further alleged that the
petitioner has not supplied the goods for remaining amount of
Rs.26,07,800/-. Hence, she tried to contact him several times
through the mobile-phone and the petitioner did not respond for the
same. Hence, she was constrained to lodge a complaint. On the
basis of the said complaint, a case came to be registered against
the petitioner-accused and as such the petitioner apprehending his
arrest has approached the Prl. Civil Judge (Jr.Dn) & JMFC Court,
Magadi, Ramanagara and the learned Civil Judge rejected the
anticipatory bail petition filed by the petitioner. Hence, the
petitioner is before this Court.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner/Accused
and the learned HCGP for the Respondent-State. Perused the
records.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner/Accused would
contend that, the petitioner-accused does not have any intention of
cheating the complainant. He contends that he has to get the
goods from the foreign country and due to the war between the
Ukrain and Russia, there was delay in supply of the consignment to
him and as such he could not supply the goods to the complainant.
It is further contended that as the petitioner has invested the
amount with the concerned company at this juncture, he could not
pay the amount now. It is also submitted that subsequently, the
petitioner has remitted Rs.8 Lakhs to the account of the
complainant which is received by her and for remaining amount of
Rs.16 Lakhs he would undertake to pay the same in the due
course. He also undertakes to abide by all the terms and conditions
to be imposed by this Court.
5. Per contra, the learned HCGP would contend that the
petitioner is a habitual offender and this can be traced through the
google search wherein the review discloses that he has cheated
number of persons in this regard and hence, he would contend that
this is not a fit case to exercise the discretion in favour of the
petitioner and sought for dismissal of the bail petition.
6. The complaint was registered for the offence punishable
under Sections 419, 420 of IPC and under Sections 66(C) and
66(D) of Information Technology Act, 2008. However, 419 of IPC is
not attracted in the instant case as there is no impersonation and
the only allegation is that inspite of receiving the amount for supply
of the goods, the petitioner has not supplied the same which is
subject to allegation of cheating. However, further records
discloses that the petitioner has subsequently remitted Rs.8 Lakhs
to the account of the complainant which is admitted by the
prosecution. The argument addressed by the learned HCGP that the google search discloses that the petitioner has cheated number of persons which is evident from the review cannot be accepted as it does not have any legal evidentiary value. However, the record
discloses that there is some transaction between the parties and
now the learned counsel for the petitioner has also undertakes to
pay the balance amount in due course as 1/3rd of the amount is
already returned to the complainant.
7. Looking into these facts and circumstances, I do not
find any impediment to admit the petitioner for anticipatory bail and
the apprehension raised by the learned HCGP can be meted-out
by imposing certain conditions.
8. Hence, the bail petition needs to be allowed and
accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:-
ORDER
The petition is allowed. The petitioner/Accused is directed
to be enlarged on bail in the event of his arrest in Crime
No.100/2022 of Ramanagara CEN Crime Police Station,
registered for the offences punishable under Sections 419, 420 of
IPC and under Sections 66(C) and 66(D) of Information
Technology Act, 2008, pending on the file of the Prl. Civil Judge
(Jr.Dn) & JMFC Court, Magadi, Ramanagara, on executing
personal bond for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs
only) with one surety for the like-sum to the satisfaction of the
Investigating Officer or the concerned trial Court, subject to the
following conditions:
i) Petitioner shall surrender himself before the
Investigating Officer within fifteen days from the
date of receipt of a certified copy of this order
and in the event of surrender, Investigating
Officer/SHO shall release him on bail as
directed.
ii) He shall not directly or indirectly tamper with
any of the prosecution witnesses.
iii) He shall not indulge in any similar offences.
iv) He shall make himself available to the
Investigating Officer for interrogation whenever
called for during course of investigation and cooperate
with the investigating agency.
v) He shall mark his attendance before the
Investigating Officer/SHO between 9.00 a.m.
and 5.00 p.m. on every first Monday of the
month till the final report is submitted.
Sd/-
JUDGE
HR
No comments:
Post a Comment