Somashekar M vs The State Of Karnataka, on 31 July, 2014

[Cites 6, Cited by 1]

Karnataka High Court

Somashekar M vs The State Of Karnataka, on 31 July, 2014

Bench: K.N. Phaneendra

                            1

            IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                    DHARWAD BENCH
          DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF JULY, 2014

                         BEFORE

      THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.N. PHANEENDRA

           CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 101293/2014

BETWEEN:

SOMASHEKAR M
AGE: 26 YEARS,
OCC: VILLAGE ACCOUNTANT MAIGUR
TQ: JAMAKHANDI, DIST: BAGALKOT
R/O: PAVAGAD, DIST: TUMAKUR
                                           ... PETITIONER

(BY SRI : P N HOSAMANE, ADV.)

AND

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
BY JAMAKHANDI RURAL POLICE
STATION, REPRESENTED BY SPP
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH.
                                         ... RESPONDENT

    (BY SRI V.M. BANAKAR, ADDITIONAL STATE PUBLIC
PROSECUTOR)

     THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 438 OF CR.P.C.
SEEKING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON ANTICIPATORY
BAIL IN THE EVENT OF HIS ARREST IN JAMKHANDI RURAL
P.S. CRIME NO.183/2013 REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCES
P/U/S 420, 465, 468 & 471 OF IPC.
                                2

    THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

                         ORDER

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional State Public Prosecutor for respondent - State. Perused the records.

2. The Jamakhandi Tahsildar had lodged a F.I.R. before the Jamakhandi Rural Police Station alleging that petitioner was serving as a Village Accountant at different places and was selected and appointed by the concerned Deputy Commissioner in the year 2008-09. After appointment, petitioner was called upon to produce the marks-card of their educational qualification, particularly the marks-card of II year PUC. The original marks-cards were sent to the Director of University Education for the purpose of verification. On the report of the Director of Pre- University Education, it was found that the petitioner has produced bogus marks-card and the marks-card produced 3 by them did not tally with the original records maintained by the Pre-University Office. On coming to know about this particular fact, it appears that the Deputy Commissioner has dismissed the petitioner from his service and also directed the Tahsildar to lodge a complaint against him for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 465, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as 'I.P.C.' for brevity).

3. I have carefully perused the orders passed by learned Sessions Judge, who has dismissed the bail petition filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. On looking to the facts and circumstances of this case, all the witnesses are official witnesses and all the documents have been secured by the Deputy Commissioner and sent them for verification to the Director of University Education. There is no need for custodial investigation insofar as the petitioner is concerned. However, by imposing stringent conditions, the petitioner is entitled to be enlarged on anticipatory bail. At this stage 4 this Court cannot imagine that the petitioner may jump or violate the bail conditions and if he does so, the prosecution is at liberty to approach the Court for cancellation of bail. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following -

ORDER Petition filed under Section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 by petitioner is allowed. Petitioner shall be released on bail in the event of his arrest in connection with Crime No.183/2013 for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 465, 468 & 471 of I.P.C., subject to the following conditions -

i) Petitioner shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- with one solvent surety for a likesum to the satisfaction of Investigating Officer/ jurisdictional Magistrate, as the case may be.

ii) Petitioner shall surrender himself before the Investigating Officer / Committal Court / Trial Court, as the case may be, within 10 days from the date of receipt of this order 5

iii) Petitioner shall not indulge himself in tampering the prosecution witnesses.

iv) Petitioner shall make himself available to trial Court on all the future hearing dates, unless prevented by any genuine cause.

v) Petitioner shall appear before the I.O. as and when required for the purpose of investigation, interrogation, etc. and he shall mark his attendance once in 15 days on any Sunday between 10 a.m. and 6 p.m., till filing of the charge sheet or for a period of two months, whichever is earlier.

Office is hereby directed to send a copy of this order to the Investigating Officer.

Sd/-

JUDGE hnm/

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court