IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 4th DAY OF JANUARY, 2011 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY CRIMINAL PETITION No. 10004/2011 BETWEEN: Dheerendra Swamy S/o.Late Sheshagiri Rao Aged 62, R/o, Devangpet, Hospet Dist: Bellary PETITIONER (By Shri. Hegde Neeralgi & Patil, Advocates) AND: State of Karnataka By Sub Inspector of Police T. B. Dam police station Hospet, Dist. Bellar RESPONDENT (By Shri K. B. Adhyapak, AGA) This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C seeking to release the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest in connection with private complaint No.64/2010 and Tungabhadra P.S. Crime No.57/2010 alleging offences u/s 420, 465 and 471 of IPC pending on the file of the Civil Judge & J.M.F.C, Hospet. 2 This petition coming on for orders this day, the Court made the following: ORDER Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner. 2. The facts as stated are as follows: The petitioner is said to be the accused in a private complaint before the Civil Judge and J.M.F.C, Hospet and upon reference, the Tungabhadra Dam police have registered a case in Crime No.57/2010, where it is alleged that the accused has persuaded the complainant to purchase plots bearing Nos.75 to 77 out of the land bearing survey No. 134/B4B in Hospet village, taluk Hospet. It is further alleged that the petitioner had obtained a decree for specific performance in respect of 23 house sites in land bearing survey No. 134/B4B in a civil suit bearing O.S.No.58/ 1999 on the file of Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.), Hospet and by virtue of yet another judgment and decree in respect of 51 plots in land bearing survey No.134/B4B ‘3 in civil suit bearing O.S.No.40/2004 on the file of Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.), Hospet. It is alleged that the plots bearing survey No.75 to 77 were non-existent and therefore, it was alleged that the petitioner had sought to defraud the complainant and was guilty of offences punishable under Sections 465, 471 and 420 of IPC. 3. The petitioner contends that the very reply to the legal notice issued on behalf of the complainant to abide by the terms of agreement of sale entered into between the accused and the complainant indicated that the agreement was executed only in respect of Site No.75 which cannot be said to be non-existent as is apparent from the layout plan available on record. The allegations that the petitioner sought to sell non-existent plot Nos.76 and 77 is therefore incorrect and a glaring circumstance which has been readily accepted by the Court below in rejecting the application of the petitioner seeking anticipatory bail. He would further point out that insofar 4 as plot No.75 is concerned, it is an admitted fact that it was agreed to be sold and it was very much available for such sale and the petitioner has received a sum of Rs.40,00,000/-. Further the complainant had failed to pay the balance amount as required under the agreement of sale, which lead to the issuance of legal notice calling upon the complainant to comply with the said terms of agreement of sale. It is pursuant to this that the complainant has alleged that there was plots were non- existed. The dispute is purely civil in nature and would require to be adjudicated before a Civil Court. However, a false and misleading complaint has been readily entertained by the lower Court and proceedings have been initiated. The learned Counsel would submit that having regard to the above circumstances, it is not necessary that the petitioner be arrested in the above circumstances to ascertain the correctness or otherwise of the agreement of sale pertaining to the said land. In that view of the matter, the Counsel for the petitioner would submit that /2S the rejection of the anticipatory bail by the lower Court on the ground that there was an attempt to defraud the complainant is therefore contrary to the material that is prima facie discernable as seen from the present record. The learned Counsel would submit that the petitioner would abide by any terms and conditions imposed and further submits that in the event this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail without calling for objections from the learned Government Pleader, it may consider grant of interim anticipatory bail having regard to the reputation of the petitioner, which is at stake on account of the false and misleading complaint lodged against him. 4. In that view of the matter, on perusal of the record, it is seen that the agreement said to have been executed between the accused and the complainant is in respect of plot No.75 and since there is admission by the petitioner that he has received the advance sum but that the complainant had failed to comply with the terms of the agreement, the facts and circumstances would apparently 6 reveal the dispute to be of a civil nature, it cannot be readily presumed that there was an attempt to defraud the complainant. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail on the following terms and conditions. 1. In the event of arrest, the petitioner shall be enlarged on bail on his furnishing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- along with a solvent surety for a like sum, to the satisfaction of the trial Court. 2. The petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the trial Court without seeking leave of that Court. 3. The petitioner shall make himself available to the Investigating Authority as and when required for the purposes of investigation. 4. The petitioner shall not seek to influence or interfere with any prosecution witnesses. The petitioner is granted eight weeks time from today, to seek regular bail before the competent Court. 7 Accordingly the petition is allowed subject to the above terms and conditions. sd/ JUDGE gab/