Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 850 (KAR)

R. Ravikumar v. State of Karnataka

2014-09-25

BUDIHAL R.B.

body2014
ORDER Budihal R.B., J. 1. These are the petitions which are pertaining to the same crime number. Hence they have been taken together to dispose of them by common order. 2. These petitions are filed by the respective petitioners under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C., seeking anticipatory bail to direct the respondent police to release the petitioners on bail in the event of their arrest for the alleged offences punishable under Section 192(A) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 and Section 408 of the IPC registered in respondent police station Crime No. 55/2014. 3. Heard the arguments of the learned counsels appearing for the respective petitioners and also the learned HCGP for the respondent - State. 4. Counsel for the petitioners in Crl. P. Nos. 5733/2014 and 5736/2014 during the course of their arguments made the submission that so far as the petitioner, R. Ravikumar is concerned, he was not at all appointed when the alleged offence were taken place. He made the submission that as per the prosecution case, the alleged offences were taken place during the period 1996 to 2001. Learned counsel produced a copy of the appointment order of R. Ravikumar, which is dated 30.01.2004. He also made the submission that the petitioners in both the petitions were working as the officials in the last cadre and whenever the instructions given by their higher officers, they have to carry. He also made the submission that looking to the FIR lodged by the Tahsildar and also the report submitted by the Assistant Commissioner, there are no allegations as against the present petitioners that they have committed the alleged offences. Only the general allegations are made that the revenue officials are involved in committing the alleged offence of creating the documents and granting land to the persons. Hence he submitted that there is no material to show that the petitioner's involvement in committing the alleged offences. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner in Crl. P. No. 5735/2014 during the course of his arguments made the submission that the present petitioner is working as a Revenue Inspector and in the FIR, name of the present petitioner is not at all mentioned making any specific allegations against him. There are only general allegations made in the FIR. He submitted that petitioner is still in the service. Therefore, the question of the petitioner absconding will not arise. There are only general allegations made in the FIR. He submitted that petitioner is still in the service. Therefore, the question of the petitioner absconding will not arise. The alleged offences are triable by the Magistrate court and not exclusively punishable for death or imprisonment of life. He made submission that by imposing stringent conditions the petitioner may be admitted to bail. 6. As against this, learned HCGP during the course of his arguments submitted that looking to the FIR and also the report submitted by the Assistant Commissioner, prima facie goes to show that Rules provides only for grant of 4 to 5 acres of land, whereas in this case more than 4 to 5 acres of land has been granted. Hence he submits that this itself prima facie would goes to show the involvement of the present petitioners in the alleged crime. He submits that matter is still under investigation and the Investigating officer has to collect some more material and he has to file the charge sheet. He made further submission that since from the date of alleged offence, they are absconding and they are not entitled to be granted with bail. 7. I have perused the averments made in the bail petition, FIR and other materials placed in the case. Looking to the prosecution case in brief and as pleaded in the petition that the petitioners are working in the revenue department, on a vague complaint, alleging the distribution of saguvali chits, Assistant Commissioner and the Magistrate, Madhugiri conducted a detailed investigation and found that some of the officials named in his report dated 19.03.2011 have committed the alleged offence under Section 192(A) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 and Section 408 of the IPC and recommended for filing of a criminal cases. It is also contended by the petitioners that though it is mentioned in the report that the alleged offences were committed and came to the notice on 19.03.2011. It is after 3½ years later, the Tahsildar has filed the complaint. Hence it is the contention of the petitioner herein that the complaint is belated and it is after thought. 8. It is also contended by the petitioners that though it is mentioned in the report that the alleged offences were committed and came to the notice on 19.03.2011. It is after 3½ years later, the Tahsildar has filed the complaint. Hence it is the contention of the petitioner herein that the complaint is belated and it is after thought. 8. Perusing the grounds urged in the bail petitions by the respective petitioners, it is their contention that they were not at all involved in committing the alleged offence and even looking to the FIR, no specific allegations are made against each of the petitioners about the act which is said to have been committed. The alleged offences are also triable by the Magistrate Court and they are not punishable with death or imprisonment of life. Petitioners contend that they are working and they are very much available for interrogation whenever the Investigating Officer calls for them. They have also undertaken that they are ready to be abide by any of the conditions to be imposed by this court. Considering these aspects of the matter, I am of the opinion by imposing stringent conditions, petitioners can be admitted to bail. 9. Accordingly, all the three petitions are allowed and the respective petitioners, the respondent police are directed to release them on bail in the event of their arrest for the alleged offences registered in respondent-police station in Crime No. 55/2014 subject to the following conditions: i. Each petitioner has to execute a personal bond for Rs. 25,000/- (Twenty Five Thousand Rupees Only) and they have to furnish one surety for the like sum to the satisfaction of the Trial Court. ii. They shall not tamper the prosecution witnesses, directly or indirectly. iii. They shall appear before the Investigating Officer for interrogation, whenever called for. iv. They shall have to appear before the jurisdictional Court within thirty days from the date of this order and they have to furnish their personal bond as well as surety bonds.