iN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD 1)ATED THIS THE l211 DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2011 BEFORE fOE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY CRIMINAL PETITION No.10981/2011 BE Rk EEN: Sri. Virupapur Santosh Kumar S/o. V. Prabhanjan Rao, Age: 30 years, Sangam Nilava’, B.T.Patil Nagar, Koppal-583 231. 2. Smt. Hindupuram Sireesha \V/o V. Santosh Kumar, Age: 24 years, R/a : ‘Sangam Nilava’, B,T,Patil Nagar, Koppal-583 231. 3. Sri. Kiran S.S. S/o. Shekar Goxvda, Age: 30 years. R/a : 395 Sri. Malalon. ith Main Road, 2 Phase, Dollara Layout. J.P.Nagar, E3angalore-560 069. PETITIONERS (B Shri.Srinand A. Pachhapure, Advocate) The State of Karnataka Market Police Station. Belgaum, represented by SPP, High Court of Karnataka Circuit Bench, Dharwad. RESPONDENT (- S1 . Vinavak Kuikarni. High Court Government Pie der.) rhis Criminal Petition is filed under Section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure seeking to direct the rEs)o11dent police to release the petitioners on bail in tie event of their arrest in FIR No.146/201 1 dated 20.U5 201 1 registered at the Market Police Station, Belaum, for the offences punishable under Sections F8B(5A) of RBI Act, 1934 & Section 420, 406 of Indian Pi al Code. Phis petition coming on for orders this day, the Court made the following: ORDER Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and t e learned Government Pleader. 2. The petitioners are the Managing Director, Director and the Chief Executive Officer of a company. rspectivelv, incorporated under the Companies Act, 3 1956. On the complaint of the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Belgaum that the petitioners were issuing public advertisements in the name of their company, “V3 Infrastructure and Estate Pvt. Ltd.,” and soliciting deposits of money from members of the general public, on the assurance of providing them house sites in developed layouts and that there is a possibility of the petitioners cheating the general public of their money and on the basis of two pancha witnesses and other staff members of the Market Police Station, the petitioners were said to have been watched and tnereafter they were called upon to explain their activity and on the basis of the suspicion against the petitioners a case has been registered under Crime No.146/2011 for offences punishable under Section 420, 406 of Indian Penal Code and Section 58B (5A) of the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934. 3. The petitioners had initially approached the Fast Track Court-IV in Belgaum seeking anticipatory S 4 bail. The Court had examined the case of the petitioners at length and had opined that the petitioners were indeed entitled for such anticipatory bail, but however found that the petitioners had also approached this Court by way of Criminal Petition which had been heard and an interim order of stay of further proceedings, had been granted. In that view of the matter the Fast Track Court observed that in view of no further proceedings being possible, the apprehension of arrest was ill founded and therefore it disposed of their petition. Subsequently, however, this Court having vacated the order of stay, the apprehension of the petitioners is renewed and therefore the petitioners are before this Court. 4. A reading of Section 45-S and Section 588 of the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934, as rightly observed by the learned counsel for the petitioners, it is doubtful whether the section would be attracted. In any event the petitioners are not accused of any serious offence and ‘S tnev nould be entitled to bail before the Court in the LSLUtl course. It is therefore a fit case where the j..et ;tiuners who seriously apprehend damage to their repauaion and their business, if the petitioners are subjected to arrest, ought to be granted relief. . In that view of the matter, the petitioners l.a e made out a case for grant of anticipatory bail and accordingly, the present petition is allowed. The j !r.sdtctlonal police are directed to release the pet tuners on bail, in the event of their arrest in case 146/2011, subject to the condition that the pet:tioners shall report to the police station forthwith and shall render full co-operation to the Investigating Officer. who is involved in the said case. •. Having regard to the decision of the Supreme Cniirt in the case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre vs. Slate of Maharashtra and others reported in AIR 2011 Supreme Court 312, in the event that the prosecution is oh lie opinion that the anticipatory bail granted to the S 6 petitioners by this Court requires modification in view of any circumstances that may be made out against the petitioners, it is open for the prosecution to approach this Court. The petition stands disposed of accordingly. Sd/a JUDGE Mrk/