Karnataka High Court
Shivashankarappa vs State Of Karnataka on 5 December, 2022
Author: K.Natarajan
Bench: K.Natarajan
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.10486 OF 2022
BETWEEN
SHIVASHANKARAPPA
S/O LAT E KARIYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS
R/AT KANIGANAHALLI VILLAGE
HUDUKULA POST
BANGALORE TALUK
KOLAR DISTRICT 563114 ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI SHANKARAPPA S, ADVOCATE)
AND
STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY HALASURUGATE P.S
REP BY HCGP
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BANGALORE 01
... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI B.J. ROHITH, HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439
OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, PRAYING TO
ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CR.NO.180/2022 OF
HALASURGATE P.S., BANGALORE FOR THE OFFENCES
PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 255, 258, 259, 260, 465, 468,
471, 420,120-B READ WITH SECTION 34 OF IPC ON THE FILE
OF THE I A.C.M.M., BANGALORE IN C.C.NO.30464/2022.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 23.11.2022 THIS DAY, THE COURT
MADE THE FOLLOWING:
2
ORDER
This petition is filed by accused No.9 under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, for granting regular bail in Crime No.180/2022 registered by Halasurgate Police Station, for the offences punishable under Sections 255, 258, 259, 260, 465, 468, 473, 420 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, pending on the file of 1st ACMM, Bengaluru.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned High Court Government Pleader for the State
3. The case of the prosecution is that a suo- motu compliant registered by Halasurugate Police for the aforesaid offences against accused persons on 19.07.2022, alleging that they have got the information that some persons were selling the fake e- 3 stamps at Kandaya Bhavana, Bengaluru. Hence, he set up a D-Kayath customer by sending one Naveen Kumar, Head Constable 11048 for purchasing the old stamp paper. Accordingly, the D-Kayath customer/police men went and met one Karthik and asked about old stamp papers for the face value of Rs.50/- five in numbers and stamp papers for the face value of Rs.10/- five in numbers. The said accused has assured and has taken him to meet One Vishwanath/accused No.1. Subsequently said Vishwanath undertook to give the E-stamp and asked to give a sum of Rs.10,000/- as advance amount and to give e-stamp for the face value of Rs.10/-, they have charged Rs.5,000/- and to give e-stamp for the face value of Rs.50/-, they have charged Rs.6,000/-.
4. Thereafter, on 19.07.2022 at 07:30 a.m., the accused No.3/Venkatesh and accused No.4/Shyamraju 4 who brought the said e-stamp papers. Then police trapped them and seized ten stamp papers under seizure panchanama. During the investigation they arrested so many accused persons and also this petitioner was arrested on 01.08.2022. It is alleged that on the basis of voluntary statement of accused No.8, this petitioner was arrested.
5. It is further alleged that the petitioner was also purchased e-stamp papers and created GPA for the year 1970 for getting the entire award in respect of site NO.21 in Sy. NO.8 at Thindlu village, Yelahanka. The bail petition of the petitioner came to be rejected by this Court on the previous occasion. Now, once again he is before this Court in this successive bail petition.
5
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner was arrested on the voluntary statement of the co-accused and he was said to be in possession of e-stamp papers and he has not circulated the said stamp papers. Therefore, the alleged offence will not attract, except Sections 420 and 468 of IPC. The other offences are bailable in nature and triable by Magistrate. The petitioner is in custody for almost four months and he is ready to abide by any condition. The marriage of his grand daughter is fixed and his presence is necessary for performing the marriage of his grand daughter. Hence, prayed for granting bail.
7. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader has objected the bail petition contending that the bail application of the co-accused was already rejected by this Court. The petitioner was arrested 6 and fake e-stamp papers and the other documents were recovered. If the petitioner is released on bail, he may commit the similar offences. Hence, prayed for rejecting the petition.
8. Having heard the arguments of learned counsel for the parties, perused the records.
9. On perusal of the records, it reveals that the police trapped the fake stamp racket in this case. One Naveen Kumar, Head Constable, was sent to Kandaya Bhavana for purchasing the old e-stamp paper. They arrested accused Nos.3 and 4 by trapping them and seized the old fake e-stamp papers. During investigation, it was revealed that the petitioner was also involved in the commission of the offence, he has created false GPA by obtaining fake e-stamp paper. The investigation has been completed and charge 7 sheet has been filed. However, the charge sheet materials reveal that the petitioner is also involved in one more case in the year 2014 itself in Crime No.1266/2014 registered by Bangarpet police for creating the documents for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 468, 471, 504, 506 read with 34 of IPC, which reveals that the petitioner is in the habit of committing the similar offences and creating the fake documents with the help of other accused in order to grab the properties of third parties. Therefore, there is prima facie material placed on record against the petitioner for having committed the said offences. If the petitioner is granted bail, he may commit the similar offence and he may also tamper the witnesses and destroy the evidence. This Court already rejected the bail petition of the other accused persons by a detailed judgment on merits. The petitioner is involved in the commission of economic 8 offences causing loss to State exchequer and giving help to other accused in order to knock out the properties of third parties by creating the documents. This case is similar to the case of Talagi's fake stamp papers case. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for the grant of bail.
Accordingly, the criminal petition is rejected.
Sd/-
JUDGE CS