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
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
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
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