Karnataka High Court: Ashok G. Nijagannavar, J. while allowing this criminal petition directed the petitioner to appear before the Investigating Officer and such Officer shall interrogate him and enlarge him on bail.
In this instant petition, the petitioner prays for anticipatory bail which has already been rejected by the Sessions Court for the offences punishable under Sections 420 and 417 read with Section 34 IPC.
The complainant Vijayalaxmi was an agent in Jana Sneha Wealth Real Wealth Solutions Private Ltd. Different posts were held by the accused persons in the company. The nature of the work of the agents was such that they were instructed by the Directors to collect deposits from the general public by assuring them of a higher rate of interest and to get double the amount of deposits within five years and six months.
After demonetisation hit India, the accused persons started avoiding repayment to the customers. Since then, the complainant and other agents had collected nearly a crore from the customers. In December 2017, in order to make illegal gains with dishonest intentions, the accused persons locked the company. Hence, he committed fraudulent acts. After registering the case, the petitioner is being on a lookout by the Police.
Counsel for the petitioner, B. Anwar Basha submitted that the petitioner had resigned from the post and after that, the remaining accused persons established the Udayamabag Branch of the Company. The petitioner is in no way concerned with the activities of neither the accused persons nor any fraudulent transactions.
Counsel for the respondent-State, Seema Shiva Naik, HCGP submitted that all the accused persons had collected huge amounts of money from the innocent customers and later had failed to pay.
After analyzing the submissions of the parties, the Court observed that the petitioner had resigned and later on after five years the complaint was filed. Moreover, the time the petitioner left there were no allegations as to any fraudulent acts.
Therefore, the Court granted the petitioner an anticipatory bail as the grounds mentioned in the petition rightly suggests the actual apprehension of getting arrested. [Venugopal Vaidya v. State of Karnataka, 2019 SCC OnLine Kar 2095, decided on 15-10-2019]