Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 976 (KAR)

D. Venkatesh v. State of Karnataka

2022-07-28

SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR

body2022
JUDGMENT 1. This petition filed by accused No.1 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.110/2022 of Kurugod Police Station registered for the offences punishable under Sections 419 and 420 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as the 'IPC', for brevity). 2. The case of the prosecution is that, one Smt.Tejaswini L.Naik, Sub Registrar, Kurugodu Town, Ballari has lodged a written complaint before PSI, Kurugod Police Station and the same came to be registered against the petitioner in Crime No.110/2022 of Kurugod Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 419 and 420 of IPC. It is stated in the said compliant that, on 04.05.2018 the petitioner had obtained a GPA from Mari-Kotturswamy by impersonation and the same was got registered in the office of Sub Registrar, Hubballi-North in respect of land bearing Sy.No.282/1 measuring 22.48 acres situated at Vaddatti village. It is further stated that on the basis of the said GPA, the petitioner got registered the sale deed in his name vide document No.5861/21-22 dated 02.03.2022. Subsequently, the complainant came to know about intention of the petitioner to cheat Mari-Kotturswamy by obtaining GPA. The complainant informed the same to her superior officers who in turn instructed her to lodge a complaint. The petitioner who is accused No.1 apprehending his arrest, has filed Criminal Miscellaneous No.560/2022 seeking anticipatory bail and the same came to be rejected by the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Ballari by order dated 01.07.2022. Therefore, the petitioner is before this Court seeking anticipatory bail. 3. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the petitioner is innocent and has not committed any offence as alleged. The alleged impersonation is said to have taken place in Hubballi and the complaint came to be filed in Kurugodu Town, Ballari. It is his further submission that Mari- Kotturswamy has executed GPA in favour of the petitioner and on the strength of the said GPA, he got the sale deed registered in his name. It is his further submission that Mari-Kotturswamy has not filed any compliant of impersonation against the petitioner. Whether the petitioner has impersonated as stated, is a matter of investigation and trial. It is his further submission that Mari-Kotturswamy has not filed any compliant of impersonation against the petitioner. Whether the petitioner has impersonated as stated, is a matter of investigation and trial. The offences alleged against the petitioner are not punishable with death or imprisonment for life. The petitioner is ready to co-operate with the Investigation Officer in the investigation and is ready to furnish surety and ready to abide by any conditions to be imposed by this Court. Hence, he prayed to allow the petition. 5. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader submits that, the investigation is still in progress and if the petitioner is granted anticipatory bail, he will hamper the investigation and tamper the prosecution witnesses. The offence alleged against the petitioner is under Section 420 of IPC which is punishable with imprisonment for 7 years and the petitioner has committed heinous offence for which he is not entitled for grant of anticipatory bail. 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, complaint and order passed by the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Ballari. 7. The offence alleged against the petitioner- accused is that, he impersonated Mari-Kotturswamy and created a GPA. The said GPA was registered in the office of the Sub Registrar, Hubballi. Learned counsel for the petitioner placing on record the photocopy of the GPA, submits that the photo of the executor Mari-Kotturswamy is imprinted on the GPA along with the photo of the petitioner and therefore, there is no impersonation. Whether the petitioner has impersonated the said Mari-Kotturswamy and created GPA is a matter of investigation and trial. The offences alleged against the petitioner are not punishable with death or imprisonment for life. 8. The main objection of the prosecution is that, if the petitioner is granted anticipatory bail, he will tamper the prosecution witnesses and flee from justice, could be met with by imposing stringent conditions. 9. 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. 9. 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.1 is ordered to be released on bail in the event of his arrest in Crime No.110/2022 of Kurugod Police Station, subject to the following conditions: i. The petitioner/accused No.1 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 Investigation Officer. ii. The petitioner/accused No.1 shall voluntarily appear before the Investigation Officer within fifteen days from this day and execute personal bond and furnish surety. iii. The petitioner/accused No.1 shall remain present before Police Station concerned on 1 s t and 3rd Sunday of every month and mark his presence for a period of two months or till filing of the charge sheet whichever is earlier. iv. The petitioner/accused No.1 shall co-operate in the investigation and make himself available for interrogation whenever required. v. The petitioner/accused No.1 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 IO or to any Police Officer. vi. The petitioner/accused No.1 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.