LAWS(KAR)-2022-5-8

DEEPAK J Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

Decided On May 05, 2022
Deepak J Appellant
V/S
STATE OF KARNATAKA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Accused No.3 in Crime No.90/2022 registered by the Jayanagar Police Station, Bengaluru City, for the offences punishable under Ss. 406, 419, 420, 464, 465, 468, 471, 120B read with Sec. 34 of IPC, has filed this petition under Sec. 439 of Cr.P.C., seeking regular bail.

(2.) Brief facts of the case that would be relevant for the purpose of disposal of this petition are: On 7/3/2022, the P.S.I. of Jayanagar Police Station received an information that one person near NMKRV College Campus was soliciting for Degree Certificate for Rs.25,000.00 to Rs.40,000.00 and after getting this information confirmed, the PSI along with his staff reached the campus and apprehended one person by name Raghu, s/o H.Jayaram and on enquiry, he revealed that he was working as an agent for one Dharma Kumar, who is the owner of SLV Correspondence Centre situated at V.V.Puram, Bangalore and one Deepak, the owner of M/s.Easy Education Study Centre at Ramamurthy Nagar, Bangalore and when his bag was searched, the Police found certain incriminating material, which was seized under a panchanama. Thereafterwards, they returned to Police Station and registered a FIR. Subsequently, the petitioner, who was arrayed as accused No.3 in the FIR, was also arrested on 7/3/2022 and was remanded to judicial custody on 8/3/2022. The bail application filed by the petitioner before the City Civil and Sessions Court, Bangalore in Crl.Misc.No.3151/2022 was dismissed by the said court vide order dtd. 30/3/2022. Hence this petition.

(3.) Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the Police have arrested the accused persons without even registering the FIR. He submits that the maximum punishment for the alleged offences is only seven years and the case is triable by the court of Magistrate. He also submits that the major portion of the investigation is over and the last date for filing the charge sheet is today. He submits that the petitioner's custody is no more required as the investigation is already complete and accordingly prays to enlarge the petitioner on bail.