Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 2168 (KAR)

Lalitha Venkatesh v. State Of Karnataka

2020-11-03

K.NATARAJAN

body2020
JUDGMENT K. Natarajan, J. - Learned High Court Government Pleader accepts notice for the respondent-State. 2. This petition is filed by the petitioner under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (for short, the Cr.P.C. ) for granting anticipatory bail in Crime No.4 of 2019 registered by Banaswadi Police Station, Bengaluru, for the offences punishable under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 504, 506B and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, the IPC ) on the private complaint filed by one K. Kumar before the XI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, in P.C.R. No.58494 of 2018. 3. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State. 4. The case of the complainant before the Magistrate in P.C.R. is that accused Nos.1 to 4 referred in the complaint together hatched conspiracy to knockout the property of the complainant, created false Gift Deed, said to have been created in the name of the wife of the complainant, alleged to be gifted to accused No.1 and based upon the alleged bogus Gift Deed, accused No.1 entered into agreement of sale with accused No.2 to alienate the property for Rs.2 crore and subsequently, agreement of sale came to be cancelled. Based upon the complaint, the Police registered a case against accused Nos.1 to 4 and the same is under investigation. The Police are making efforts to arrest this petitioner as she was the witness to the agreement of sale, said to have been executed by accused No.1 in favour of accused No.2. The petitioner approached the Sessions Court for bail, which came to be rejected. Hence, this petition. 5. Sri Krishna B.J., learned counsel for the petitioner, has contended that the name of the petitioner is not mentioned in the complaint and she is not at all involved in the offences alleged against accused Nos.1 to 4. She is the witness to the agreement of sale, which is a registered document. The petitioner is only acquainted with accused No.1 in some voluntary organisation and not having any knowledge about the creation of the document by accused No.1. The offences are not punishable with death or imprisonment for life. She is a resident of Bengaluru and ready to abide by any condition to be imposed by this Court. Hence, he prayed for allowing the petition. 6. The offences are not punishable with death or imprisonment for life. She is a resident of Bengaluru and ready to abide by any condition to be imposed by this Court. Hence, he prayed for allowing the petition. 6. Per contra, Sri Diwakar M. Maddur, learned High Court Government Pleader, has objected the bail petition and contended that, the investigation is still under progress. The petitioner has signed as a witness in the agreement of sale, which is a created one by the accused persons to knockout the property of the complainant. The petitioner is required for custodial interrogation and if she is granted bail, she may tamper with the witnesses and abscond from the case. Hence, he prayed for rejecting the bail petition. 7. Upon hearing the arguments, it goes to show that Kumar filed a private complaint No.58494 of 2018 before the XI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, and referred the matter to the Police under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. Based upon the complaint, the Police registered the case and admittedly, the name of the petitioner is not found in the complaint or in the F.I.R. registered by the Police. It is seen from the document that the alleged agreement of sale, which is said to have been executed by accused No.1 in favour of accused No.2, in which the petitioner has acted as a witness and signed in the presence of the Sub-Registrar. Except the allegation that she signed as a witness in the agreement of sale, nothing is available to show that she is involved in the commission of the offences. Said agreement of sale has already been canceled and the same is produced before this Court. The matter is still under investigation and the Police require to investigate regarding the involvement of the accused persons, whose names are mentioned in the F.I.R. and involvement of any other persons. At this stage, there is no material on record to show that this petitioner hatched any conspiracy with accused No.1 to knockout the property of the complainant, except she signed as a witness in the agreement of sale. The offences are triable by the Magistrate and the same is not punishable with death or imprisonment for life. At this stage, there is no material on record to show that this petitioner hatched any conspiracy with accused No.1 to knockout the property of the complainant, except she signed as a witness in the agreement of sale. The offences are triable by the Magistrate and the same is not punishable with death or imprisonment for life. The petitioner, being a woman, having a special consideration under the proviso to Section 437(1) of the Cr.P.C. Therefore, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the petition deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following O R D E R The criminal petition is allowed. The respondent-Banaswadi Police Station is directed to release the petitioner on bail in the event of her arrest in Crime No.4 of 2019 for the offences punishable under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 504, 506B and 120B of the IPC, subject to the following conditions: i. Petitioner shall execute a personal bond in a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) with a surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the Investigation Officer; ii. Petitioner shall surrender herself before the Investigating Officer within thirty days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order; iii. Petitioner shall not tamper with the prosecution witnesses directly or indirectly; iv. Petitioner shall be in deemed custody for the purpose of any recovery under Section 27 or for obtaining any specimen signature for Expert s opinion under Section 45 or 47 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872; and v. Petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when called for the purpose of investigation.