Case Law Details
Sri Om Pratap Singh Vs Station House Officer (Karnataka High Court)
The complaint was registered for the offence punishable under Sections 419, 420 of IPC and under Sections 66(C) and 66(D) of Information Technology Act, 2008. However, 419 of IPC is not attracted in the instant case as there is no impersonation and the only allegation is that inspite of receiving the amount for supply of the goods, the petitioner has not supplied the same which is subject to allegation of cheating. However, further records discloses that the petitioner has subsequently remitted Rs.8 Lakhs to the account of the complainant which is admitted by the prosecution. The argument addressed by the learned HCGP that the google search discloses that the petitioner has cheated number of persons which is evident from the review cannot be accepted as it does not have any legal evidentiary value. However, the record discloses that there is some transaction between the parties and now the learned counsel for the petitioner has also undertakes to pay the balance amount in due course as 1/3rd of the amount is already returned to the complainant.
Looking into these facts and circumstances, I do not find any impediment to admit the petitioner for anticipatory bail and the apprehension raised by the learned HCGP can be meted-out by imposing certain conditions.
Hence, the bail petition needs to be allowed.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
