Sri. B.N. Raghu vs State Of Karnataka on 14 June, 2022

[Cites 6, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Sri. B.N. Raghu vs State Of Karnataka on 14 June, 2022

Bench: H.P. Sandesh

                            1



       IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

           DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF JUNE, 2022

                          BEFORE

           THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH

              CRIMINAL PETITION NO.3615/2022

BETWEEN:

SRI B.N. RAGHU,
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
S/O SRI M.N. NANJAPPA,
NO.22/2, 3RD CROSS,
NEAR AYAPPA TEMPLE,
AZAD NAGAR, CHAMARAJPET,
BANGALORE SOUTH,
BANGALORE-560018.                              ...PETITIONER

               (BY SRI M. PARTHA, ADVOCATE)

AND:

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY
MICO LAYOUT POLICE STATION,
BANGALORE,
REPRESENTED BY HCGP,
BANGALORE-560001.                             ...RESPONDENT

                (BY SRI H.S. SHANKAR, 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.207/2020 REGISTERED BY
MICO LAYOUT POLICE STATION, BENGALURU FOR THE OFFENCE
PUNISHALBE UNDER SECTIONS 420, 465, 471 AND 468 OF IPC
PENDING ON THE FILE OF VI ADDL.C.M.M., BENGALURU.
                                 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. praying this Court to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest in respect of Crime No.207/2020 registered by MICO Layout Police Station, Bengaluru, for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 465, 471 and 468 of IPC.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State.

3. The factual matrix of the case of the prosecution is that this petitioner though not the owner of the property, based on the created and fictitious documents, sold the property in favour of Marappa and Tarun J and on the strength of that created documents, the purchaser mortgaged those documents in the bank and availed the loan and made some payment and thereafter committed default. On verification, it came to light that all of them have indulged in creation of the documents and 3 pretended that the same is genuine documents and availed loan of Rs.1,51,00,000/- and hence the complaint is registered.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he had sold the property long back and handed over all the original documents to the purchaser and not indulged in creation of any BBMP khatha or any fake documents and the allegations made in the complaint that he is involved in forgery and creation of documents is baseless and hence he may be enlarged on bail and the petitioner would assist the Investigating Officer and cooperate for investigation.

5. Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State submits that this petitioner had indulged in execution of sale agreement and also sale deed based on the strength of the fictitious documents, which have been created and forged and the very same documents are pledged by accused Nos.13 and 14 in the bank and availed the loan and did not repay the amount. On verification, it came to light about the forgery and using of forged documents for availing the loan.

6. Having heard the respective learned counsel and also on perusal of the material available on record, specific allegation is made in the complaint given by the bank, wherein five documents are referred and this petitioner executed the sale deed in favour of Tarun J and the very same documents are pledged with the bank. The specific allegation is made that even though he is not the owner, he created the BBMP fake khatha and other documents and on the strength of the fake documents, he sold the property to Tarun J and indulged in cheating the bank. When such allegations are made and having taken note of the detailed complaint is given and also details are given with regard to the fraud committed by total five persons amounting to Rs.1,51,00,000/- and at the instance of this petitioner, the said documents are created, it is a matter required to be probed and the presence of the petitioner is required with regard to the serious allegation of creation of documents and forgery and hence it is not a fit case to exercise the discretion in favour of the petitioner.

7. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following:

ORDER The petition is rejected.

Sd/-

JUDGE MD

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court