Karnataka High Court
Jambanna S/O B Sriramulu vs The State Of Karnataka on 8 April, 2022
Author: P.N.Desai
Bench: P.N.Desai
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF APRIL, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.DESAI
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.100938/2022
BETWEEN:
JAMBANNA S/O. B. SRIRAMULU
AGE. 37 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS,
R/O. BAPUJI NAGAR, BALLARI
...PETITIONER
(BY SHRI T HANUMAREDDY, ADVOCATE.)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY SUB INSPECTOR POLICE,
GANDHINAGAR POLICE STATION,
BALLARI, REPRESENTED BY SPP,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SMT.GIRIJA HIREMATH, HCGP.)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 438 OF
THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973, SEEKING TO DIRECT
THE RESPONDENT POLICE TO ENLARGE THE
PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.11 ON BAIL IN THE EVENT OF ARREST
IN CRIME NO.01/2022 OF GANDHINAGAR POLICE STATION,
BALLARI, REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER
SECTIONS 420, 465, 468, 471 AND 120(B) READ WITH SECTION
34 OF IPC, PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE
AND JMFC COURT, BALLARI, ETC.,.
2
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE
COURT PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This petition is filed under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking to enlarge the petitioner/accused no.11, on anticipatory bail, in the event of his arrest in Crime No.1/2022 of Gandhinagar Police Station, Ballari, registered for the offences punishable under sections 420, 465, 468, 471, 120(B) read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, pending on the file of Prl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Ballari.
2. A complaint came to be lodged by the Police Inspector of Gandhinagar Police Station, Ballari, alleging that accused nos.1 to 9 are though residents of Maharashtra State, to get appointment at Indian Army in Karnataka quota, forged the documents, created the documents and produced such documents before the police during the documents verification time. They have also forged the signature and seal of Gandhinagar Police and accused nos.10 and 11 have helped them in getting false 3 caste, income and domicile certificates. This came to knowledge of the police when they received letter from Indian Army to verify the antecedents of these persons. Hence the said case came to be registered. The bail petition filed by the petitioner came to be dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge. Hence this petition is filed.
3. Heard Shri T.Hanumareddy, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt.Girija S. Hiremath, the learned HCGP for the respondent State. Perused the material placed on record.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner has not committed the alleged offences. The main allegation is on accused nos.1 to 9 who are residents of Maharashtra State and they have created documents. The learned counsel also argued that it is for the concerned authorities to verify the application to issue domicile certificate. Therefore, for the act of accused nos.1 to 9, this petitioner is falsely implicated. The petitioner is having wife and children and he is having aged parents. On the basis of the statement given by the other accused that 4 this petitioner has helped accused nos.1 to 9, he has been implicated in this case. The petitioner is ready to abide by the conditions that may be imposed by this Court. Hence, the learned counsel for the petitioner argued to allow the petition.
5. Against this, the learned HCGP argued that the accused nos.1 to 9 are already involved in Crime No.135/2021 and for similar type of offence they are at Hadagali sub jail. The learned HCGP stated that looking into the seriousness of the offence and its impact on the society as the petitioner is also stated to have helped them in obtaining the fake income and domicile certificates, if he is granted bail, there is possibility of he absconding and tampering the prosecution witnesses and he may not appear before the Court. Therefore, the learned HCGP argued to reject the bail petition.
6. I have perused the contents of the complaint, FIR and petition averments. The allegation is that the accused nos.1 to 9 tried to get job at Indian Army by getting fake documents such as domicile certificate and 5 income certificate and caste certificate by forging the signature and seal of the Gandhinagar police. Though they are residents of Maharashtra State, they have created the documents to show that they are residents of Karnataka and trying to get Job in Karnataka quota of Indian Army. Of course the alleged offences are not punishable with death or imprisonment for life.
7. On perusing the records, it is clear that accused nos.1 to 9 are to be enquired and as they have created documents and this petitioner is also required to be enquired as he has helped them. So, the role of the petitioner is that he has helped the other accused in creating such documents. Of course though the role of petitioner appears to be helping accused nos.1 to 9, but there are no such type of cases of creating any documents is either filed or pending against the petitioner and no material is placed before the Court at this stage that this petitioner is involved in this type of this case in creating or forging documents earlier.
6
8. The main allegation is against accused nos.1 to 9. The petitioner has contended that he is ready to abide by the conditions that may imposed by the Court and co-operate with the investigating officer for investigation as he is having family members and apprehend arrest by police and in such case he will be put hardship.
9. It is settled principle of law that bail is a rule and rejection is an exception. While granting or rejecting the bail application, the Court will have to take into consideration, (1) the nature and seriousness of the offence;
(2) character of the accused;
(3) circumstances which are peculiar to accused;
(4) reasonable probabilities of presence of the accused not being secured at trial; (5) reasonable apprehension of witnesses being tampered with; and (6) larger interest of public or the state and similar other considerations, which arise when a court is asked to admit the accused to bail in a non-bailable offence. 7
10. Keeping in mind these principles if the allegations of the prosecution and role of petitioner who is arraigned as no.11 is considered, the petitioner is entitled to be enlarged on anticipatory bail as his apprehension of arrest by the police is well founded. On the other hand, the objection of the prosecution that the petitioner may tamper the prosecution witnesses and may not appear for investigation can be meted out by imposing reasonable conditions on the petitioner, as he has undertaken to abide by the conditions that may be imposed by the Court. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The criminal petition filed under section 438 of Cr.P.C. is allowed. The petitioner/accused no.11 shall be released on anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest in respect of Crime No.1/2022 of Gandhinagar Police Station, Ballari, registered for the offences punishable under sections 420, 465, 468, 471, 120(B) read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, pending on the file of Prl. 8 Civil Judge and JMFC, Ballari, subject to the following conditions.
i) The petitioner/accused no.11 shall execute a personal bond for Rs.1,00,000/-
with two sureties for the like sum, to the satisfaction of the investigating officer or the SHO of Gandhinagar Police Station, Ballari.
ii) The petitioner shall not try to tamper or
threaten the prosecution witnesses
directly or indirectly.
iii) The petitioner shall appear before the
investigating officer/SHO within one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and shall surrender himself and thereafter the investigating officer shall interrogate him and recover the incriminating articles, if any, and then release her on bail forthwith.
iv) The petitioner shall furnish proof of his residential correct address and shall inform the Court/Investigating Officer if there is any change in the address.
v) The petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the trial Court without prior permission of the trial Court.
vi) The petitioner shall mark his attendance before the jurisdictional Police/SHO on every Tuesday and Friday, between 10.00 a.m. to 2.00 p.m. for a period of three months or till filing of the charge sheet whichever is earlier.
9
vii) The petitioner shall appear before the Court/investigating officer as and when directed.
viii) The petitioner shall not involve in any criminal activities and shall not commit similar offences.
In case if any of the condition is violated, the prosecution is at liberty to move application for cancellation of bail.
Sd/-
JUDGE Mrk/-