Vinay Kumar K S vs The State Of Karnataka on 13 January, 2022

[Cites 5, Cited by 1]

Karnataka High Court

Vinay Kumar K S vs The State Of Karnataka on 13 January, 2022

Bench: H.P. Sandesh

                            1



       IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

         DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2022

                         BEFORE

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

           CRIMINAL PETITION NO.10154/2021

BETWEEN:

VINAYKUMAR K.S.,
S/O K.S. SIDDARAJU
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
RESIDING AT ARADYA STREET
WARD NO.7, NEAR SOCIETY
YELANDUR TALUK
CHAMARAJANAGARA DISTRICT-571 441.         ... PETITIONER

         (BY SRI CHANDRASHEKARA K.A.,ADVOCATE )

AND:

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY THE POLICE OF YELANDUR POLICE STATION
CHAMARAJANAGARA DISTRICT-571 441
REP. BY SPP, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BENGALURU-560 001.                       ... RESPONDENT

              (BY SRI KRISHNA KUMAR., 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.155/2021 OF YELANDUR
P.S., CHAMARAJANAGAR DISTRICT, FOR THE OFFENCES
PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 419, 468, 484 OF IPC.
                                   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. praying to enlarge the petitioner/accused on bail, in the event of his arrest in respect of Crime No.155/2021 registered by Yelandur Police Station, Yelandur Circle, Chamarajanagar, for the offence punishable under Sections 419, 468 and 484 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 is that a complaint dated 19.11.2021 is made by the Chief Officer of the Yelandur Town Panchayat alleging that this petitioner made use of Pattana Panchayath office letterhead, furnished false information and obtained permission and subsequently, the same is also cancelled. But, this petitioner indulged in creation of documents and used the same.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the allegation against this petitioner is that he used the Pattana Panchayath letterhead and gave false information. Apart from that, the offence invoked is not punishable with death or imprisonment for life. The counsel would also submit that, in the guise of creation of document and making use of the letterhead of the Pattana Panchayath, the petitioner has not got any benefit. Hence, he may be enlarged on bail.

5. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State would submit that serious allegation of theft of letterhead as well as furnishing of false information and making use of letterhead of the Pattana Panchayath for his benefit is alleged against the petitioner and hence, there is a prima facie case against the petitioner.

6. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State and having considered the factual aspects of the case, it is seen that the allegation against this petitioner is that he made use of letterhead of the Pattana Panchayath and forged the signature of 4 the Chief Officer and tried to get the benefit. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner brought to the notice of this Court that the application filed for RO Dealership was rejected on 23.06.2021 itself and the alleged document is dated 13.07.2021, subsequent to the rejection of the application.

7. When such being the factual aspects of the case, it is a matter of investigation and the matter has to be investigated by the Investigating Officer and the petitioner can be directed to assist the Investigating Officer during the course of investigation. Hence, it is a fit case to exercise the powers under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. in favour of the petitioner, subject to imposing certain conditions to protect and safeguard the interest of the prosecution. Hence, I pass the following:-

ORDER The petition is allowed. Consequently, the petitioner shall be released on bail, in the event of his arrest in connection with Crime No.155/2021 registered by Yelandur Police Station, Yelandur Circle, Chamarajanagar, for the offence punishable 5 under Sections 419, 468 and 484 of IPC, subject to the following conditions:-

(i) The petitioner shall surrender himself before the Investigating Officer within ten days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order and shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only) with two sureties for the like-sum to the satisfaction of the concerned Investigating Officer.

(ii) The petitioner shall not indulge in hampering the investigation or tampering the prosecution witnesses.


      (iii)    The   petitioner    shall     co-operate   with    the
               Investigating      Officer      to    complete     the

investigation and he shall appear before the Investigating Officer, as and when called for.

(iv) The petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Investigating Officer without prior permission till the charge sheet is filed or for a period of three months, whichever is earlier.

(v) The petitioner shall mark his attendance once in a month i.e., on 30th of every month between 10.00 am and 5.00 pm., before the 6 Investigating Officer for a period of three months or till the charge sheet is filed, whichever is earlier.

Sd/-

JUDGE ST

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court