Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 1351 (KAR)

Vinodkumar v. State of Karnataka

2022-10-12

SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR

body2022
JUDGMENT Shivashankar Amarannavar, J. - This petition is filed by the petitioner/accused No. 6 under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Cr.P.C.', for brevity) seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No. 105/2022 of Market Police Station, Belagavi, for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 464, 465, 467, 468 and 471 read with Section 149 of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC', for brevity). 2. The case of the prosecution is that, accused No. 1 said to have created General Power of Attorney (for short 'G.P.A.') of the complainant and his brother on 01.12.2020, forged documents like pan card, aadhar card etc., impersonated the complainant and his brother and created sale deed in his own name. It is alleged that on 02.11.2021 accused No. 1 again forged the sale deed and documents, altered the survey number as 30/6 from 30/1 and created bogus sale deed in favor of accused No. 2-Shrikant Tumari to which accused Nos. 4 and 5 are the witnesses. On 14.12.2021 accused No. 2 got the sale deed cancelled. Pammar-accused No. 3, accused Nos. 4 and 6 are the witnesses to this sale deed. On 16.04.2022 accused No. 1 sold another piece of land to Mahadev Somappa Pammar (accused No. 3) to which accused Nos. 4 and 7 are the witnesses. With regard to property belonging to the friend of the complainant, accused No. 1 has created bogus sale deed in favor of himself on 01.12.2020 and accused Nos. 11 and 12 are the witnesses. On 22.06.2021 accused No. 1 sold the property of Arun Kamat to accused Nos. 8 and 9 Basavaraj Avarolli and Raju Katyayannavar and executed G.P.A. in favour of accused No. 1 again to sell the said land. Thereafter, accused No. 1 sold the said property to accused No. 16 Geeta Chindi in the presence of accused Nos. 14 and 15. The said complaint came to be registered against accused Nos. 1 to 16 in Crime No. 105/2022 of Market Police Station, Belagavi for the aforesaid offences. The petitioner/accused No. 6 apprehending his arrest filed Criminal Miscellaneous No. 960/2022 seeking anticipatory bail, which came to be rejected by the IX Additional Sessions Judge, Belagavi by order dated 21.07.2022. Therefore, the petitioner is before this Court seeking anticipatory bail. 3. 1 to 16 in Crime No. 105/2022 of Market Police Station, Belagavi for the aforesaid offences. The petitioner/accused No. 6 apprehending his arrest filed Criminal Miscellaneous No. 960/2022 seeking anticipatory bail, which came to be rejected by the IX Additional Sessions Judge, Belagavi by order dated 21.07.2022. Therefore, the petitioner is before this Court seeking anticipatory bail. 3. Heard the arguments of learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the petitioner is innocent and he has not committed any offences as alleged. The petitioner/accused No. 6 only signed as a witness in the sale deed and identified the executants. It is his further submission that the offences alleged against the petitioner are not punishable with death or imprisonment for life. As the case of the prosecution is based on the documents, the petitioner is not required for any custodial interrogation. The petitioner is ready to co-operate with the Police in the investigation. There are no criminal antecedents of the petitioner. With this, he prayed to allow the petition. 5. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader would contend that the investigation is still in progress, the petitioner is required for custodial interrogation. The offences alleged against the petitioner are heinous offences of cheating, etc. If the petitioner is granted anticipatory bail, he will hamper the investigation and tamper the prosecution witnesses and flee from justice. With this, he prayed to reject the petition. 6. Having regard to the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader, this Court has gone through the FIR and the order passed by the Sessions Court. 7. Accused No. 1 purchased the property on 01.12.2020 and thereafter he has entered into several transactions with other accused. This petitioner/accused No. 6 has signed as a witness to one of the sale deed executed by accused No. 1 in favour of accused Nos. 2 and 3. The entire case of the complainant is based on the documents available with the Sub-Register and other authorities. The offences alleged against the petitioner are not punishable with death or imprisonment for life. The petitioner has undertaken to co-operate with the Police in the investigation. There are no criminal antecedents of the petitioner. 2 and 3. The entire case of the complainant is based on the documents available with the Sub-Register and other authorities. The offences alleged against the petitioner are not punishable with death or imprisonment for life. The petitioner has undertaken to co-operate with the Police in the investigation. There are no criminal antecedents of the petitioner. The main objection of the prosecution is that, if the petitioner is granted anticipatory bail, he will hamper the investigation, tamper the prosecution witnesses and flee from justice, can be met with by imposing stringent conditions. 8. In the facts and circumstances of the case and submission of the counsel, this Court is of the view that there are valid grounds for granting anticipatory bail subject to certain terms and conditions. Hence, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER The petition filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. is allowed. Consequently, the petitioner/accused No. 6 is ordered to be released on bail in the event of his arrest in Crime No. 105/2022 of Market Police Station, Belagavi, subject to the following conditions: i. The petitioner shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/-(Rupees One Lakh Only) with one surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer. ii. The petitioner shall voluntarily appear before the Investigating Officer within fifteen days from this day and execute bail bond and furnish surety. iii. The petitioner shall attend the Police Station concerned every Sunday between 10:00 a.m. and 06:00 p.m. and mark his presence for a period of three months or till filing of the final report, whichever is earlier. iv. The petitioner shall co-operate with the investigation and make himself available for interrogation whenever required. v. The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any witness acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any Police Officer. vi. The petitioner shall not obstruct or hamper the police investigation and not to play mischief with the evidence collected or yet to be collected by the police.