Karnataka High Court
Sri. Dhareppa Shantinath Yalagudri vs The State Of Karnataka on 31 March, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF MARCH, 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE M.G.UMA
CRIMINAL PETITION No.100629/2021
BETWEEN:
SRI. DHAREPPA SHANTINATH YALAGUDRI
S/O SHANTINATH YALAGUDRI,
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS,
OCC MECHANIC,
R/O THERADAL TOWN,
DIST BAGALKOTE.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI: RAMACHANDRA A MALI, ADV)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY OBALLARI RURAL POLICE,
NOW REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH CURT OF KARNATAKA BUILDING,
DHARWAD BENCH,
DHARWAD-580011.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI: RAMESH B.CHIGARI, HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 439 OF CR.P.C.
SEEKING TO ADMIT AND ENLARGE THE
PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.1 ON BAIL IN CONNECTION WITH
BALLARI RURAL P.S.CRIME NO.308/2020 REGISTERED FOR
THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/SEC. 419, 420, 465, 468,
120-B R/W 34 OF IPC. ON THE FILE OF III ADDL. CIVIL
JUDGE (JR.DIV.) AND JMFC, BELLARY, ON ANY TERMS AND
CONDITIONS.
2
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS
THIS DAY, THE COURT PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioner-accused No.1 is before this Court seeking grant of bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. in Crime No.308/2020 of Ballari Rural Police Station, registered against him and other accused for the offences punishable under Sections 419, 420, 465, 468, 120B read with 34 of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as 'the IPC' for the sake of brevity) on the basis of first information lodged by Sri.M.Srinivasa Rao, the Police Inspector of Hospet.
2. Brief facts of the case are that, the informant lodged the first information against the accused on 24/1/2020 stating that the examination for recruitment of K.S.R.P. and P.C. (IRB) test was being held in Basavarajeshwari Public PU College, Ballary. The informant was in-charge of the examination to supervise the conduct of examination. College Centre code No.5 and room No.13 was marked for attendance of 20 candidates and one Dharani was the Invigilator. After examination, the answer sheets were being taken to the office of the District Superintendent of Police and in the meantime, 3 S.P. Ballary, received credible information that one of the candidates who was required to write his examination in room No.13 had not attended the examination and on the other hand, some other person has written the examination by impersonating the candidate. The Registration numbers and CCTV footage were verified. The candidate who wrote the examination in registration No.3154175 was not the candidate and the photo was not tallying with the person who wrote the examination. Therefore, it is stated that the accused have criminally conspired and committed cheating by impersonating accused No.2 as accused No.1 with an intention to commit the offence. It is stated that the present petitioner was the candidate who was required to write the examination, but he allowed accused No.2 to impersonate him and accused Nos.1 to 4 have criminally conspired to commit the offence.
3. Heard Sri. Ramachandra A.Mali, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri.Ramesh B.Chigari learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State. Perused the materials on record.
4
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is arraigned as accused No.1. He is the candidate who applied for the post of K.S.R.P. and P.C. (IRB). He has not committed any offence as alleged. He has been falsely implicated in the matter without any basis. The petitioner was apprehended on 21/1/2021 and since then he is in judicial custody. The offence alleged is not punishable either with death or imprisonment for life. The detention of petitioner would amount to pretrial punishment. The petitioner is the permanent resident of the address mentioned in the cause title to the petition and is ready and willing to abide by any of the conditions that would be imposed by this Court. Hence, he prays for allowing the petition.
5. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader opposing the petition submitted that serious allegations are made against the present petitioner for having committed the offence. The investigation is still under progress. Hence, he is not entitled for grant of bail. Hence, he prays for dismissal of the petition.
5
6. In view of the rival contentions urged by learned counsel for both the parties, the point that would arises for my consideration is:
"Whether the petitioner is entitled to be enlarged on bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C.?"
My answer to the above point is in the 'Affirmative' for the following:
REASONS
7. The allegation made against the petitioner is of serious nature. It is stated that he conspired along with accused Nos.2 to 4 and allowed accused No.2 to impersonate him to commit cheating with a common intention and allowed accused No.2 to write examination on his behalf. The documents were forged deliberately to commit cheating. It is stated that the investigation is still under progress. However, petitioner was apprehended on 21/1/2021 and since then he is in judicial custody. It is not the contention of prosecution that the petitioner is required for custodial interrogation. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that the petitioner is entitled to be enlarged on bail subject to conditions which will take care of the 6 apprehension expressed by the learned High Court Government Pleader that the petitioner may abscond or tamper or threaten the prosecution witnesses. Hence, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The petition is allowed.
The petitioner is ordered to be enlarged on bail in Crime No.308/2020 of Ballari Rural Police Station on obtaining the bond in a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only) with two sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court, subject to the following conditions:
a). The petitioner shall not commit similar offences.
b). The petitioner shall not threaten or tamper with the prosecution witnesses.
c). The petitioner shall appear before the Trial Court as and when required.
It is needless to state that, in case, if any of the conditions are violated by the petitioner, the prosecution will be at liberty to seek cancellation of bail.
Sd/-
JUDGE Vmb