Karnataka High Court
Sri Leo vs State Of Karnataka on 10 June, 2021
Author: Mohammad Nawaz
Bench: Mohammad Nawaz
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JUNE, 2021
BEFORE:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.3845 OF 2021
BETWEEN:
SRI. LEO
S/O LOURDUSWAMY
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,
R/A 65/62 PUS NAGAR
ANAIYERI, VILUPPURAM
TAMIL NADU-605 201.
... PETITIONER
[BY SRI. PONNANNA, SR. COUNSEL FOR SRI. ARNAV A. BAGALWADI,
ADVOCATE]
AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH HANUMANTHNAGAR P.S.,
BENGALURU,
KARNATAKA-560 050.
REPRESENTED BY
THE SPP OFFICE,
CITY COURT COMPLEX.
... RESPONDENT
[BY SRI. SHOWRI H.R., HCGP]
***
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 438 OF
CR.P.C., PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN THE
EVENT OF HIS ARREST IN CR.NO.64/2021 OF HANUMANTHANAGAR
P.S., BENGALRU CITY FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER
SECTIONS 419, 420 OF IPC AND SECTION 118 OF KARNATAKA
EDUCATION ACT.
2
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THROUGH
VIDEO CONFERENCE, THIS DAY THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This petition is filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. by petitioner/accused No.5 praying to enlarge him on anticipatory bail in connection with a case registered in Crime No.64/2021 of Hanumanthanagar Police Station, Bengaluru, for offence punishable under Sections 419, 420 of IPC and Section 118 of Karnataka Education Act, 1983.
2. Heard the learned counsel for petitioner, learned HCGP for respondent-State and perused material on record.
3. In the complaint dated 08.04.2021 lodged before the respondent-police, the complainant has alleged that during her visit as an observer to Sree Bhavani School of Nursing, Srinagar, Bangalore, on 05.04.2021, at 10.00 a.m., she found one Noturiya Sumaya, registration No.16DN13754 (Accused No.3) and one Manisha Bariya, registration No.17DN05344 (Accused No.4) were not present to write the examination pertaining to child health nursing, instead, one Nilam Venkar 3 (Accused No.1) and one Elise (Accused No.2) were impersonating the said students and writing the exams. It is alleged that the management and the Principal of the college have facilitated the said students to impersonate and write the exams on behalf of other students.
4. Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that even if the entire allegations in the complaint are accepted, then, the ingredients of the offence alleged are not made out. He submits that there is nothing to show that the petitioner has facilitated or aided the students who are alleged to have impersonated and wrote the exams. He contends that at the instigation of one Ramakrishna Reddy, said to be the Chief Officer, the petitioner has been falsely implicated. He refers to the complaint averments and submits that the said Ramakrishna Reddy, Chief Officer was present in the college, even though he has no authority to be present in the college on the relevant day and he has called the complainant-observer to the second floor, which clearly implies that he has instigated the complainant to lodge a false complaint against the management and principal. He submits that accused Nos.1 and 2 have been enlarged on 4 bail. The petitioner is a respectable person having deep roots in the society and he is ready and willing to abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this court. Hence, seeks to allow the petition.
5. Learned HCGP has opposed grant of bail vehemently contending that admittedly the petitioner is the Principal of the college and as a Principal, he has an onerous duty to conduct the examination which was held in the college. He contends that it cannot be said that the petitioner has no knowledge about the impersonation taking place and cannot shirk his responsibility. He contends that accused Nos.1 and 2 have given their voluntary statements wherein they have stated that they have impersonated by writing examination in the names of Accused Nos.3 and 4. He therefore submits that there is a prima facie case and seeks to reject the petition, contending that in the event of release of the petitioner, he may tamper with the prosecution witnesses.
6. According to the first informant, accused Nos.1 and 2 were writing the examination conducted by GNM Examination Board at Sree Bhavani School of Nursing. It is alleged that 5 accused Nos.1 and 2 were found writing examination by impersonating accused Nos.3 and 4. Petitioner is the Principal of the college. In the complaint it is alleged that the college management and Principal have facilitated accused Nos.1 and 2 to write the examination. At this stage, There is no material to show that the petitioner herein has facilitated or made any arrangements or helped the said accused Nos.1 and 2 to write the examination by impersonating accused Nos.3 and 4. The role played by the petitioner has to be substantiated in due course. Without there being sufficient material against the petitioner, the relief sought cannot be denied. Accused Nos.1 and 2 are on bail. The petitioner has undertaken to abide by the conditions and to cooperate with the investigation. In the facts and circumstances, I pass the following:
ORDER The criminal petition is allowed.
The petitioner - Accused No.5 shall be enlarged on bail in the event of his arrest in Crime No.64/2021 of Hanumanthanagar Police Station, Bengaluru, subject to following conditions: 6
(i) Petitioner shall appear before the Investigation Officer within a period of Fifteen days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and shall execute personal bond in a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) with two sureties for like sum and shall cooperate with the investigation of the case.
(ii) Petitioner shall furnish proof of his residential address and shall inform the I.O./court regarding change of address, if any.
(iii) Petitioner shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence/witnesses in any manner.
(iv) Petitioner shall make himself available for the purpose of investigation, whenever required.
(v) Petitioner shall be regular in attending the court proceedings.
Sd/-
JUDGE snc