Sri. Surendra Balekai vs The State Of Karnataka on 8 August, 2017

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 08TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2017

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE RATHNAKALA

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.5428/2017

Between:

Sri. Surendra Balekai
S/o Veereshappa
Aged about 43 years
R/at: No. 209/A, 2nd Floor
14th Cross, Tank Bund Road
Near Sangolli Rayanna Park
Subramanyanagar
Bengaluru- 560 021.
…Petitioner
(By Sri. Chandrashekar P Patil, Advocate)

And

The State of Karnataka
Through Sub-Inspector of Police
Sanjay Nagar Police Station
By its State Public Prosecutor
High Court Building
Bengaluru- 560 001.
…Respondent
(By Sri. S. Vishwamurthy, HCGP.)
2

This criminal petition is filed under Section 438 of
Cr.P.C praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the
event of his arrest in Crime No.54/2016 registered by
the Sanjaya Nagar Police, Bengaluru for the offence
punishable under
section 406 of IPC.

This Criminal Petition coming on for Orders
this day, the Court made the following:

ORDER

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and

the learned High Court Government Pleader for the

respondent-State.

2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest by the

respondent-police in respect of Crime No.54/2016

registered by the respondent-police in respect of offence

punishable under section 406 of IPC.

3. The allegation of the prosecution is, the

complainant-H.S.Nagaraj holds a Bank Account at Axis

Bank, Sanjay Nagar Branch, Bengaluru and without his

permission, the Manager of the Bank furnished his

account statement to this petitioner thereby violating
3

the rules and regulations of the Bank. By providing the

said statement of account in a matrimonial case which

is pending between this petitioner and his wife before

the family Court, thus this petitioner exploited the bank

statement pertaining to the complainant and thereby,

caused mental torture to the complainant, etc.

4. Sri Chandrashekar P Patil, learned counsel

appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner

READ  State Of N.C.T. Of Delhi And Anr vs Sanjeev @ Bittoo on 4 April, 2005

works as Scientist in Thermo Fisher Company at United

States and he has been issued L1 VISA for the period

from 24th February 2015 to 17th February 2020. The

petitioner has filed petition for divorce against his wife

before the Family Court, Bengaluru vide

M.C.No.4619/2014. The ground for divorce is adultery

of the respondent-wife with the complainant of this

case. In support of his case, he has furnished bank

statement in connection with the money transaction

between the complainant in this case and his wife.
4

In retaliation, the complainant has lodged this

complaint. There was no intention on his part to

suppress about his employment at United States;

though he had shown his residential address at

Bengaluru; he had produced the pleadings of

M.C.No.4619/2014, wherein he has categorically stated

about his travel to United States. He was granted

anticipatory bail by the Sessions Court subject to

conditions. But, he could not appear before the

Investigating Officer as ordered by the Sessions Court

and had sought for time with Investigating Officer.

Subsequently, he challenged the said complaint and

sought for quashing of criminal case registered by the

respondent-police by filing the petition under section

482 of Cr.P.C., which was registered in

Crl.P.No.4294/2016. Initially, stay was granted in his

favour and the investigation process was stayed. In the

meantime, the prosecution moved an application for
5

cancellation of bail on the ground of suppression of

material facts. The said application is allowed. The

learned Sessions Court, vide its considered order has

cancelled the anticipatory bail granted on 17.06.2016.

Stay granted in the Criminal petition filed under section

482 of Cr.P.C., is also vacated by considering the fact

that there is violation of condition and main petition

READ  Smt. Beena Tiwari & Anr. Etc vs State Of Madhya Pradesh & Anr. Etc on 18 December, 1987

itself is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to

approach this Court after he answers the trial Court as

to the violation of the conditions on which he had been

granted anticipatory bail. However, stay granted in

favour of the co-accused is still operating and the

investigation in so far as accused No.1 is stayed. If an

opportunity is granted, without any delay he will return

to India and participate in the investigation.

5. Learned HCGP has filed statement of

objections and contends that at the time of filing the

petition under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. before the
6

Sessions Court, the petitioner was not residing in India

and he has furnished Bengaluru address as his

residential address and in his pleading there was no

whisper about his stay outside the country. Thus, he

has suppressed the material fact disentitling him for

relief under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. The petitioner was

granted anticipatory bail by the Sessions Court vide

order dated 17.06.2016 and this Court stayed the

investigation on 05.08.2016 and there is no proper

explanation from him about non-compliance of the

conditions imposed on him to appear before the

Investigating Officer and participate in the investigation.

Twice notices were issued by the Investigating Officer on

10.07.2016 and 15.07.2016, but he did not co-operate

for investigation. Hence, order of the trial Court in

canceling the anticipatory bail is proper and justified.

6. In the light of the above submission, it

transfires that the petitioner has filed petition for
7

divorce against his wife before the family Court, wherein

the present complainant’s name is also shows up as

intervener and it is also pleaded in the said petition that

this petitioner is employed as Associate Director in the

READ  Sushil Kumar vs State Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi on 22 July, 2014

Company called Thermo Fisher and he travels outside

the country on duty. The copy of his divorce petition

was placed before the Sessions Court when the

application for anticipatory bail was taken for

consideration. However, in the cause title there was no

mention of his present residential address at United

States; his residential address at Bengaluru was shown

as his address. At this stage, it cannot be said that by

suppressing material fact this petitioner has availed

anticipatory bail from the Sessions Court. The Criminal

petition No.4294/2016 filed by him challenging the

complaint is not disposed on it merits, liberty is

reserved for him to approach for the relief again.
8

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits

that if one more opportunity is granted to the petitioner,

the petitioner will make all endeavor to return to India

as early as possible and would appear before the

Investigating Officer to co-operate with the investigation.

8. In view of the same, it is felt that it is in the

interest of justice to make him available before the

Investigating Officer.

Accordingly, petition is allowed. Petitioner is

granted anticipatory bail in Crime No.54/2016

registered by the respondent-Police, for a limited period

of four weeks.

Within the above period, he shall appear before

the Investigating Officer. In that event, the Investigating

Officer is at liberty to interrogate him.
9

In the event of his arrest by the respondent-Police,

he shall be released on bail on his executing a self bond

for a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only)

with one surety for the likesum. He shall not leave the

Country without previous permission of the Court.

In view of disposal of the main petition,

I.A.No.01/2017 stands dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

DL

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *