Karnataka High Court
Muniraju. R vs State Of Karnataka on 14 December, 2018
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2018
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK G. NIJAGANNAVAR
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.8408/2018
BETWEEN:
MUNIRAJU R.
S/O RAMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO.200/18
12TH CROSS, WARD NO.2
NEAR HOYSALA CIRCLE
M T LAYOUT, K.S. TOWN
BENGALURU-560010. :PETITIONER
(BY SRI C.H. JADHAV, SENIOR ADV.)
AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY RAJAJAJESHWARI NAGAR POLICE STATION
BENGALURU
REPRESENTED BY
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT BUILDING
BENGALURU -560001. :RESPONDENT
( BY SRI K.P. YOGANNA, HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 438
CR.P.C. PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENT POLICE, TO
RELEASE HIM ON ANTICIPATORY BAIL, IN THE EVENT OF HIS
ARREST IN CRIME NO.293/2018 FOR THE OFFENCE
PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 506, 120B, 420, 406 READ
WITH SECTION 34 OF THE INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1870, ON THE
2
FILE OF THE RAJARAJESHWARINAGAR POLICE STATION,
BENGALURU, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This petition is filed under S.438 of Cr.P.C. seeking to direct the respondent police to release the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest in Crime No.293/2018 which is registered at Rajarajeshwarinagar Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 506, 120B, 420, 406 read with S.34 of IPC.
2. Heard the arguments of learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader. Perused the records.
3. The FIR was registered on the basis of the complaint filed by Smt. Nagamma W/o late Venkatesh. The complaint averments are that her husband Veeranna expired about five years back. Her father in law Sri Doddalakshmaiah @ Dasappa was granted two acres of 3 land in Sy. No.11 within the limits of Kengeri Hobli by the Spl. Deputy CommissSioner, Bengaluru, as per of the Order dated 27.02.1980 passed by the Tahsildar, in case No.LND(S)SR918/1978-79. One person by name Muddaiah and his sons had planned to grab this property and had illegally put five sheds in the said land. At that time, brother-in-law of the complainant by name Ashwathanarayana and his friend Rowdy Mulamu @ Lokesh and Muniraju took the signatures of the complainant and her family members on some stamp papers and other documents by misleading them that the said documents are required to defend them in the civil suit. The civil suit filed also got dismissed. Later the petitioner and two other accused informed the complainant that she has executed an agreement of sale and as such she does not have any right, title or interest over the property. The petitioner and other accused with an intention to grab the property have committed fraud by taking signature of the complainant and other family 4 members on the stamp papers and fabricating false records.
4. Learned Senior Counsel submitted that complainant had executed a power of attorney in favour of the accused No.1 - Ashwanathanarayana. On the basis of said power of attorney, he had represented the complainant in a civil suit against Muddaiah and had also deposed his evidence as power of attorney holder, on 19.05.2014. After the lapse of four years, the complainant has filed a false complaint by making frivolous allegations. The dispute is of a civil nature. The allegations made in the complaint are only an after-thought. At present, the police officials are making attempts to arrest the petitioner. In the event of arrest, the petitioner will be put to hardship.
5. Learned Government Pleader submitted that the petitioner and other accused have attempted to grab the property of complainant by fabricating false records. There are no valid grounds for grant of anticipatory bail. 5
6. The averments made in the complaint clearly goes to show that when a person called by name Muddaiah and others were making attempts to grab the property of the complainant by putting up sheds illegally on the open land, the complainant and her family members had put some signatures on stamp papers as per the instructions of accused No.1 - Ashwathanarayana. According to the complainant, her signature was taken on blank stamp papers and other documents by misleading complainant that they would be defending her in the civil suit. But accused No.1 being the general power of attorney holder has also given evidence in the civil suit. All these documents are placed on record. At this stage it is needless to elaborately discuss about the said records.
7. In view of the nature and gravity of the accusation, it is necessary to consider the exact role of accused and other petitioners. In the instant case, no grounds are made out regarding custodial interrogation of the petitioner herein. Normally the arrest should be a last 6 option. It should be restricted to those exceptional cases where arresting the accused is the imperative in the facts and circumstances of the case.
8. Considering the nature of allegations and the grounds urged, I am of the view that there are valid grounds for grant of bail. Accordingly I pass the following:
ORDER The criminal petition is allowed.
The petitioner is directed to surrender before the I.O. within fifteen days from the date of supply of a certified copy of this bail order. On his appearance the I.O. shall conduct the interrogation. Thereafter the petitioner shall be enlarged on bail subject to the following conditions:
(i) The petitioner shall furnish a personal bond in a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- with two sureties for the like sum to the satisfaction of the I.O. / Court;
7
(ii) The petitioner shall appear before the
Investigating Officer as and when
required;
(iii) The petitioner shall mark his attendance before the concerned Police Station on every Monday, till filing of the charge-
sheet;
(iv) The petitioner shall not threaten or allure the prosecution witnesses.
Sd/-
JUDGE sac*