Karnataka High Court
Sri. Hanamant S/O. Yallappa Jadakin vs The State Of Karnataka, on 14 December, 2020
Author: Mohammad Nawaz
Bench: Mohammad Nawaz
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2020
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ
CRL.P. NO.101580 OF 2020
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. HANAMANT S/O. YALLAPPA JADAKIN
AGE 26 YEARS, OCC AGRICULTURE,
R/O ARABHAVI, TQ MUDLAGI,
DIST BELAGAVI
2, SRI.SHANKAR S/O.HANAMANT DARENNAVAR
AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O.BAGARANAL, TQ: GOKAK, DIST: BELGAVI.
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. GIRISH S HIREMATH, ADV.)
AND
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
THROUGH GOKAK TOWN POLICE STATION
REP BY STATE S.P.P,
THROUGH HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI.V.S.KALASURMATH, HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 438
OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO GRANT A BAIL IN FAVOUR OF
PETITIONERS AND DIRECTING TO RELEASE PETITIONERS ON
BAIL IN GOKAK P.S.CRIME NO.129/2020 FOR THE OFFENCES
PUNISHABLE U/S.468, 469, 471 AND 420 OF IPC.
2
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This petition is filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. seeking to enlarge the petitioners-accused Nos.2 and 3 on anticipatory bail in Crime No.129/2020 of Gokak Town Police Station, registered for offences punishable under Sections 468, 469, 471 and 420 of IPC.
2. Heard the learned counsel for petitioners and learned HCGP for respondent-State. Perused the material on record.
3. The complaint is lodged by one Parvathi D/o Appayya Jadakina. It is alleged that accused No.1 being her uncle, accused No.2 being the son of accused No.1 and accused No.3, son-in-law of accused No.1, by colluding with revenue officials got the name of accused No.1 mutated in the RTC extract in respect of land measuring 25 guntas in Survey No.371/2 situated at Arabhavi village, 3 by forging a gift deed as if the property was gifted to accused No.1 by her father. It is alleged that accused Nos.2 and 3 are the attesting witnesses and on the basis of the said alleged gift deed, they have got mutation entry bearing MR No.291, as such accused persons committed the above offences.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the allegations are false. He submits that the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner has been now challenged before the Deputy Commissioner and the same is pending consideration. He submits that at this stage, there is no material to show that the accused persons by colluding with revenue officials have got mutation entry in the name of the petitioners herein. He submits that the petitioners are agriculturist owning movable and immovable properties and they are ready and willing to abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this Court. He further submits that the offences alleged are not punishable with 4 death or imprisonment for life. Hence, prays to allow the petition.
5. Per contra, the learned HCGP has contended that the petitioners along with accused No.1 forged a document styled as gift deed by impersonating complainant's father and got the mutation entry in their favour. He submits that the investigation is still in progress. Accordingly, he sought to reject the petition.
6. The allegations are that accused No.1 got his name mutated in the revenue records with the help of accused Nos.2 and 3 and other revenue officials, by impersonating the complainant's father by creating a bogus gift deed as if it was executed by the complainant's father. It is seen that prior to the said mutation entry, names of complainant's father and accused No.1 appeared jointly in the RTC. The learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that the mutation entry in the name of accused No.1 was challenged before the Assistant Commissioner and the same was set aside, however, the 5 said order has been challenged before the Deputy Commissioner and the same is pending consideration.
7. The allegations made in the complaint is a matter for investigation and trial. The offences alleged are not punishable with death or imprisonment for life. The petitioners have undertaken to abide by conditions. Petitioner No.1 is a permanent resident of Arabhavi in Mundalagi Taluk, Belagavi and Petitioner No.2 is permanent resident of Bagaranal in Gokak Taluk, Belagavi. Hence, by imposing suitable conditions, relief sought can be granted. Accordingly, the following:
ORDER Petition is allowed.
In the event of arrest of the petitioners in Crime No.129/2020 of Gokak Town Police Station, registered for offences punishable under Sections 468, 469, 471 and 420 of IPC, they shall be released on bail subject to the following conditions:6
a. Petitioners shall appear before the Investigation Officer within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order and shall execute a bond in a sum of Rs.50,000/- each with two sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the investigation officer.
b. Petitioners shall mark their attendance before the concerned police station on 1st and 15th of every month between 10.00 am and 5.00 pm, and shall cooperate with the investigation. c. Petitioners shall not put any threat or inducement to the complainant. d. Petitioners shall not tamper with the prosecution witnesses either directly or indirectly.7
e. Petitioners shall furnish proof of their correct residential address and shall inform regarding change in his address, if any. f. Petitioners shall be regular in attending the Court proceedings.
Sd/-
JUDGE lad