Syed Imran Pasha @ Imran Pasha vs State By Ashok Nagar Police ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 3147 Kant

                               1



       IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

         DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2022

                          BEFORE

           THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH

               CRIMINAL PETITION NO.400/2022

BETWEEN:

1.     SYED IMRAN PASHA @ IMRAN PASHA,
       S/O LATE SYED MAHABOOB PASHA,
       AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS.

2.     GULZAR UNNISA,
       W/O SYED IMRAN PASHA,
       AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS.

       BOTH ARE R/AT NO.90, 1ST FLOOR,
       SOUTH CROSS STREET,
       MUNISWAMY GARDEN,
       NEELASANDRA, VIVEKANAGAR POST,
       BANGALORE-560047.                       ...PETITIONERS

             (BY SRI VASEEMUDDIN A, ADVOCATE)

AND:

STATE BY ASHOK NAGAR POLICE STATION,
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR.              ...RESPONDENT

                (BY SRI VINAYAKA V.S., HCGP)

      THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 438 OF
CR.P.C. PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONERS ON BAIL IN THE
EVENT OF THEIR ARREST IN CR.NO.257/2021 OF ASHOKNAGAR
P.S., BANGALORE FOR THE OFEFNCE PUNISHABLE UNDER
SECTIONS 406, 420, 504 AND 506 OF IPC, ON THE FILE OF THE IV
ACMM, BANGALORE.

      THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
                                       2



                                  ORDER

This petition is filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. praying

this Court to enlarge the petitioners on bail in the event of their

arrest in respect of Crime No.257/2021 registered by

Ashoknagar Police Station, Bengaluru, for the offence punishable

under Sections 406, 420, 504 and 506 of IPC.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the

learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the

respondent-State.

3. The factual matrix of the case of the prosecution is

that in total an amount of Rs.8,00,000/- was collected by the

petitioners from the complainant and executed the agreement

and also agreed to pay an amount of Rs.11,000/- per month, but

not paid the amount and also not paid the amount of

Rs.11,000/- every month and inspite of receiving the amount on

29.11.2019, again executed the lease and rental agreement in

favour of Mohammed Gouse and received an amount of

Rs.2,50,000/- and I Floor was let out by collecting an amount of

Rs.6,00,000/- on 30.11.2020 and hence committed an offence of

fraud and criminal breach of trust and based on the complaint,

case has been registered.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit

that a false case has been registered against the petitioners and

the offences are not punishable either with death or

imprisonment for life and no prima facie case is made out

against the petitioners and hence they may be enlarged on bail.

5. Per contra, the learned High Court Government

Pleader appearing for the respondent-State would submit that

having received an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- as well as additional

amount of Rs.3,00,000/-, the petitioners subsequently executed

the documents in respect of different persons executing the

lease agreement inspite of the document was already created in

favour of the complainant and collected that amount and hence

the very inception of entering and executing the document in

favour of the complainant attracts the offence under Section 420

of IPC and there is a prima facie case against the petitioners.

6. Having heard the respective learned counsel and also

on perusal of the material on record, particularly the contents of

the complaint, while granting the anticipatory bail, the Court has

to look into the contents of the complaint. A specific allegation

is made that at the first instance, an amount of Rs.5,00,000/-

was collected and thereafter Rs.3,00,000/- was collected and

after collecting Rs.8,00,000/-, documents are executed in favour

of other persons by collecting the huge amount and hence there

is a specific allegation of committing the fraud. The Apex Court

in the judgment in the case of SUPREME BHIWANDI WADA

MANOR INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED v. STATE OF

MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER reported in (2021) 8 SCC

753 has categorically held that when there are prima facie case

of committing fraud and misappropriation of huge amount, the

petitioners are not entitled for anticipatory bail invoking Section

438 of Cr.P.C.

7. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the

following:

ORDER

The petition is rejected.

Sd/-

JUDGE

MD