Karnataka High Court.
Credit: DH File Photo
Bengaluru: The Karnataka High Court has denied anticipatory bail to Anup Kumar Chaudhary, a resident of Ayodhya, Uttar Pradesh, in a cheating case registered by the Vidhana Soudha police.
The complainant, S Muniyappa, a Bengaluru resident, alleged that Chaudhary, whom he met in New Delhi through a co-accused woman, defrauded him of Rs 31.4 lakh by promising a nomination to the Railways Committee.
Muniyappa stated that the alleged fraud began when a woman named Saritha Shetty introduced herself as a member of the Food Corporation of India (FCI) and took Rs 30 lakh from him, promising to secure an FCI membership for him. After eight months, Saritha returned the money, stating she could not fulfil the promise.
Later, Saritha introduced Muniyappa to Chaudhary at a five-star hotel in Delhi. Chaudhary allegedly promised to secure him a nominated post on either the Railway Board or a backward commission and accepted Rs 31.4 lakh from him in installments, both through bank transfers and cash payments. When Muniyappa requested the return of his money, Chaudhary allegedly threatened him.
The court was informed that while the trial court granted bail to co-accused Saritha on August 22, 2024, Chaudhary’s anticipatory bail petition was rejected.
Chaudhary argued that, although he is currently in custody for a different case in Ayodhya, his petition for anticipatory bail in the present case remains valid since he has not yet been presented before the court.
The government advocate, however, noted that Chaudhary has a criminal history, with 15 cases registered against him across the country since 2019 for similar offenses. It was also argued that Saritha, having no prior criminal record, could not be compared to the petitioner, and that custodial interrogation was essential given the serious nature of the allegations.
Justice S Vishwajith Shetty observed that, although the petition under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code is legally maintainable, the petitioner’s criminal history warranted rejection.
“Under these circumstances, though in law the present petition filed under Section 438 of CrPC, is maintainable, I am of the view that on merits of the case, considering the criminal history of the petitioner, his prayer made in this petition is liable to be rejected,” the court said.