Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 390 (KAR)

Basavaraj Gaviyappa Indi v. State Of Karnataka

2020-02-11

K.SOMASHEKAR

body2020
JUDGMENT 1. This is a successive petition filed by the petitioner accused No.2 Basavaraj Gaviyappa Indi under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. in Crime No.35/2019 of Mulagund Police Station, for alleged offences punishable under Sections 408, 471, 420, 465, 468 read with Section 34 of IPC. He has filed this petition seeking to be released on anticipatory bail. 2. Heard the learned Counsel Shri K.L. Patil for the petitioner Accused No.2 and the learned HCGP for the State. Perused the records. 3. The brief facts of the case are that a complaint was lodged by the Chief Officer of Pattana Panchayath, Mulagund against the present petitioner and another person named V.G. Habib alleging that in respect of regularization of one Shri M.P. Hirehanamanthagouda, the petitioner and V.G. Habib had created forged documents and got the services of the said Junior Engineer regularized and hence, had sought for action against the petitioner and V.G. Habib. Acting on the said complaint, the present petitioner who was working as a Sump Operator in Mulagund Municipality was placed under suspension and direction was issued to initiate criminal proceedings against the petitioner. Against the said suspension order, the petitioner preferred W.P.No.102410-11/2015 before this Court, wherein this court, by order dated 13.04.2015 has granted an interim order of stay of the order of suspension. Now, it is stated that investigation has commenced in respect of the complaint registered against the petitioner in Cr.No.35/2019. Hence, apprehending his arrest, the petitioner had approached the Sessions Judge for anticipatory bail, which application in Crl.Misc.No.243/2019 came to be dismissed by order dated 12.06.2019. Thereafter, the petitioner had approached this court in Crl.P.No.101467/2019, which came to be dismissed as withdrawn by order dated 21.08.2018. A further application filed before the Sessions Judge seeking anticipatory bail also came to be dismissed by order dated 15.08.2019. Hence, the petitioner has come up again before this court seeking the relief of anticipatory bail. 4. The learned counsel Shri K.L. Patil appearing for the petitioner contends the petitioner though has been arraigned as Accused No.2 in the aforesaid crime, as such there is no involvement of the petitioner in any of the allegations made against him. The petitioner who was working with the Municipality as a Waterman, has merely acted upon the directions issued by his superior officer and he has only verified the documents and put up the same for consideration by appropriate authorities. The petitioner who was working with the Municipality as a Waterman, has merely acted upon the directions issued by his superior officer and he has only verified the documents and put up the same for consideration by appropriate authorities. It is also contended that there is huge unexplained delay in filing the complaint, which has not at all been explained by the complainant. On a perusal of the FIR, it is seen that the alleged incident has occurred on 1.12.1985 and the present complaint has been lodged on 20.05.2019. This aspect alone is sufficient to show the malafides on the part of the complainant. Hence, the learned counsel contends that the petitioner deserves to be released on anticipatory bail. It is further contended that the person whose services were regularized, i.e., Shri M.P. Hirehanamanthagouda, is now no more and the petitioner as well as against whom bald allegations are made, has retired from service as on 31.07.2019. When such being the case, it is very clear that the complaint has been lodged with ulterior motive in order to harass the petitioner. The learned counsel also contends that the petitioner is ready and willing to abide by any conditions imposed by this court while granting anticipatory bail. On these grounds, the learned counsel for the petitioner prays that the petitioner be released on bail. 5. Per contra, learned HCGP for the State by reiterating complainant averments, vehemently contends that if the petitioner is enlarged on anticipatory bail, certainly he would come in the way of the prosecution case and destroy the evidence. Therefore he seeks for dismissal of the petition. 6. Keeping in view the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned HCGP, it is relevant to state that petitioner who has been arraigned as Accused No.2 in the aforesaid crime was working with the Municipality as a Waterman. In view of the proposal passed by the Municipality and also direction of his Superior Officer, petitioner has put up documents in respect of M.P. Hirehanamanthagouda whose services was proposed to be regularized. But after a lapse of 20 years of the alleged incident the present complaint has been lodged against the petitioner accused, which is vindictive in nature in order to cause harassment to the present petitioner and another, who are alleged to have forged documents. But after a lapse of 20 years of the alleged incident the present complaint has been lodged against the petitioner accused, which is vindictive in nature in order to cause harassment to the present petitioner and another, who are alleged to have forged documents. It is seen that the complaint has been filed on 20.05.2019, very belatedly in respect of an appointment made in the year 1991. Further, it is also seen that the said M.P. Hirehanamanthagouda is no more and the petitioner herein has also attained the age of superannuation and has retired from service. However, keeping in view the averments of the learned HCGP for the State, I deem it proper to impose a rider while granting anticipatory bail, to protect the interest of the prosecution. Whereas, the learned HCGP submits that if the accused is supposed to be released on bail, certainly he would come in the way of prosecution case and destroy the evidence. This apprehension expressed by the learned HCGP could be curtailed by imposing suitable conditions to safeguard the interest of the prosecution. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following: 7. Therefore, for the aforesaid reasons and as well as the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered opinion that the petitioner deserves to be granted anticipatory bail. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER The petition filed by the petitioner Accused No.2 under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. is hereby allowed subject to the following conditions: i) Petitioner Accused shall appear before the Investigating Officer of Mulagund P.S. in Cr.No.35/2019 within 20 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order by executing a bond in a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with a likesum surety to his satisfaction in the event of his arrest; ii) Petitioner/accused shall co-operate with the Investigating Officer during the course of investigation; iii) Petitioner/accused shall not tamper or hamper the case of the prosecution witnesses; If the petitioner violates any of the conditions, the bail order shall automatically stand ceased.