RAGHUPRASAD v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

- 3 -

No.78/2023 for the offence punishable under Section 420 read with Section 34 of IPC.

4. Gist of the complaint averments would reveal that between the period 19.10.2021 and 10.12.2021, there was a transfer of money from the account of the complaint to the account of Vaishali Manjrekar (accused No.2) in respect of supply of trash trolley. It was induced upon the complainant that without there being any tender there is a method of supplying the said trash trolley and he has got contacts whereby, orders can be placed.

5. Believing the words of the present petitioner who introduced accused Nos.2 and 3 to the complainant, funds were transferred to RTGS to the extent of Rs.4,12,22,750/-. The said amount included the payment of GST for the supply of the articles. Commercial Tax officials visited the office of the complainant with regard to non-payment of the GST for the portion of the goods that were supplied. At that juncture, enquiries were made. On such enquiry, it got revealed that there was no work order

- 4 -

and no proper documentation and GST amount was also not remitted. After sufficient amount of persuasion, sum of Rs.75,00,000/- was repaid towards by Arham Enterprises by accused No.3 who is the Director of Rishab Ventures Private Limited.

6. In the meantime, the complainant in order to complete the requirements of the commercial tax, paid sum of Rs.12,41,850/- as the amount payable for the goods supplied as GST. After payment of Rs.75,00,000/-, there was an agreement to repay the balance amount in a sum Rs.3,52,22,758/- but all the accused persons failed to make the payment. Therefore, the complainant sought for action against the accused persons.

7. After registering the case, police are investigating the matter.

8. Accused No.3 is arrested and he is now enlarged on bail. For want of presence of present

- 5 -

petitioner and accused No.2, the investigation has crippled to a considerable extent.

9. Attempt made by the petitioner to seek for anticipatory bail is rejected by the learned Trial Magistrate.

10. Thereafter, petitioner is before this Court, in this revision petition.

11. Sri.S.B.Doddagoudar, learned counsel for the petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the revision petition contended that role assigned to the present petitioner in the complaint itself is to the extent of only introducing the complainant to accused Nos.2 and 3. Therefore, petitioner is no way responsible for the alleged fraud and sought for grant of anticipatory bail.

12. He also pressed into service the health condition of the petitioner by contending that petitioner is now suffering from serious ailments and he is bedridden. Therefore, sought for grant of anticipatory bail on the medical grounds as well.

- 6 -

13. Per contra, Smt.Girija S. Hiremath, learned High Court Government Pleader opposed the bail grounds.

14. She would contend that but for the presence of the present petitioner, investigation would have been completed long back and final report could have been filed. Very fact that knowing fully well that any order for supply of goods more than the prescribed quantity should be proved by filling the procedure under the procurement in the Karnataka Transparency in Public Procurement Act and not adhering to the same itself shows that the mens rea to commit the fraud is at the inception itself and therefore, bail needs to be rejected.

15. She would further contend that but for the active participation of the present petitioner, complainant would not have parted the money to the account of accused No.2 that too in several crores which has been transferred through the bank, itself shows that the present petitioner played a major role in transfer of the money and therefore, prima facie he is also responsible for the

- 7 -

fraudulent transaction and sought for dismissal of the petition.

16. Having heard the arguments of both sides, this Court perused the material on record meticulously.

17. On such perusal of the material on record, it is crystal clear that the alleged order of supply of trash trolleys itself could not have been given by the supplier inasmuch as it was opposed to the Karnataka Transparency in Public Procurement Act.

18. Further, the money that has been transferred from the account of the complainant through RTGS to the account of the accused No.2 is not in dispute. Accused No.3 is Rishab Ventures Private Limited which is represented by Dhaval Shah, who has now been arrested and granted bail.

19. During the investigation, the bank account of accused No.3 said to have been freezed.

- 8 -

20. Taking note of these aspects of the matter and as per the complaint averments itself, the complainant is yet to receive sum of Rs.3,52,22,758/-, the presence of the present petitioner is very much necessary for the investigation agency for effective and proper investigation. Payment of money by the complainant to accused No.2 being reflected through the bank account and sum of Rs.75,00,000/- alone is repaid. As such, the matter requires detailed custodial interrogation as well in regard to remaining amount.

21. The complaint came to be registered in year 2023 and till today, the police are unable to file the final report itself shows that there is a total non-cooperation on the part of the petitioner in scuttling the fair investigation process.

22. Moreover, the anticipatory bail request came to be rejected on 16.12.2024 for the complaint that has been filed on 02.06.2023 itself shows that somehow the petitioner is trying to avoid the investigation process.

- 9 -

23. Taking note of these aspects of the matter and taking note of the fact that he has not cooperated with the investigation agency, this Court is of the considered opinion that present petitioner does not deserve for grant of anticipatory bail by resorting to the special powers vested in this Court under section 438 of Cr.P.C, accordingly, the following:

ORDER

Bail petition is rejected.

SD/-

(V.SRISHANANDA)

JUDGE

KAV

CT:PA

LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 13