High Court Karnataka High Court

N C Mukunda vs State By Jnanabharathi Police … on 25 May, 2009

Karnataka High Court
N C Mukunda vs State By Jnanabharathi Police … on 25 May, 2009
Author: Subhash B.Adi
-1-

IN THE HIGH coum or KARHATAICA AT nmeagérgn
DATED THES THE 25th DAY OF MAY, 2o:r.:=.§4"' 

BEFORE 'pf %   w

THE HON'BLE MR.JUsTzc;3 'é{jB€AsH.;  
CRIMINAL PETITIQN  - = V' 
BETWEELS: V   A  

N.C.Muku1::tda,
S/o K.N.Chikkanna,
Aged about 42 years,   ;
Nambinayakanahafii,  '
Kappa Hobli, . _   V     
Manci)'-*1Di9'71'iCf,««._ '=.v---':--  .    .

   '   ._   ....PETITI()NER
 ****     Adv.)

AWE':
State: by  "  '

Policefitation,"  .
Repmisentcd by 

"  "v1:>=posmutor, Gity civixusurt,

 RESPONDENT

  (By sn'.sat:is1a R.Girji HCGP.)

  x  Tliié. Cr}. Petition is mad U18. 433 C)R.P.C by the advocate
A   petitioner praying that this Hon'b1e Cmm; may be
.j   pieaseci to enlarge the pctr. on bail in the event of his arrest in
" "cR.No.52/09 {PCR.No.3 173109) ofJnanab11a.z'athi 13.3., which is

Regd. For the offence P/U/S420, 468 ofIPC.

This pefition coming on for Oxdem, this day, the Court
made the folkzawing:



-2-
ORDER

This is 438 petition for grant of anticipatory bail in respect
of Crime No.52/2009 registered by Kengerigate Police on
21.2.2009 for an offence punishable under Sections 420 and

468 of IPC.

2. Learned counsel for the getitioner

the same allegation, complainant has; filecl ‘” 2

{cc No.13872/2008) for an offence ;a4ungshétb1e..i1z§i1e£”

138 of Negotiable Instruments _V

3. Allegation of the comp1at:1Aiant.._.is accused

collected Rs.’?5 lakhs by iueiahip and in this

regard thVe.Aaocuseflu’£i;atl’lis’éueti’—-cheque bearing No.75014O dated

15.2.2008 w1ié:.’o.RV the cheque was not encashed,

‘…Vcompla;t;’1unt. has complaint and the said matter is still

‘I;}§e:e.ea;3;?ce:. this present complaint is filed for an ofience

420 and 468 of WC.

4. the material produced by the petitioner, it reveals

; there are two complaints flied by the some compiahlant in

of the same amount. Without going into the merit, I find

V V ‘lthot the yetitioner could be yanted anticipatoxy bail.

-3-

5. Aocozdingly, this petition is allowed. In the eveIf1xt c.)f ‘ti_31’s

ptatitioner being armsted by Kcngerigate Police fo1_f”a1§.f

punishable under Sections 420 and 453 of Ii?C1.;,.A)_j’:3L1§ %{3:1z».I1l

detained and after interrogation he shgéll

the following conditions:

The petitioner shall persafiai
133.200, 000/ – and one.soIvenf éiizréiyyfor flié fikesum

amount to the of police.

Petitiongzff % 5;oq§a;§jerxa:é,» ‘ with the
investigatiqiii with the
prosec:1ti5_r1 ” V
“ar;1e;V%%qf ajffifrgipqtcry bail wili remain in
farcexfof a, V;3erfV1′(JE?L:_L’ from today. In the
ntearaaiiilg; seek regular bait’.

_____
‘ Judge