MOHAMMED SHUJAYATH Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners have filed this petition seeking for being enlarged on bail in the event of their arrest by the respondent Kadugodi Police Station in Crime No.86/2019 for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 507, 504 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code.

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioners state that a contract has been entered into with the complainant as per the agreement dated 11.7.2018 with certain stipulations relating to supply of materials. The petitioners state that certain disputes have arisen with respect to the performance of obligation under the agreement.

(3.) The learned counsel for the impleading applicant submits that the agreement has been entered into on behalf of the entity by the persons who are not authorized to represent the said entity and it is further submitted that the document produced at page 34 which is a Board Resolution dated 8.1.2018 has been created for the purpose of overcoming the allegations that the petitioners/accused Nos. 1 and 2 were not authorized to represent the firm M/s. Asian Acero Industries. It is further submitted that the said Board Resolution was not placed before the Sessions Court wherein the application of the petitioners seeking granting of anticipatory bail came to be rejected. It is also submitted by the impleading applicant that the custodial interrogation is required.