Karnataka High Court
Mohammed Imran Khan S/O Md. Majeed Khan vs The State Of Karnataka on 11 October, 2022
Author: Mohammad Nawaz
Bench: Mohammad Nawaz
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ
CRIMINAL PETITION No.201219/2022
BETWEEN:
MOHAMMED IMRAN KHAN
S/O MD. MAJEED KHAN
AGE: 40 YEARS OCC: BUSINESS
R/O: BI-BI GALLI
HUMNABAD DIST: BIDAR. ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. PREETAM DEULGONKAR AND
SRI. SHIVAPUTRA S. UDBALKAR, ADVOCATES)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH HUMNABAD POLICE STATION BIDAR
REPRESENTED BY HCGP,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH-585 107.
... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. GURURAJ V. HASILKAR, HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION
438 OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE, PRAYING TO ALLOW
THE PRESENT PETITION AND DIRECT THE RESPONDENT -
HUMNABAD POLICE STATION BIDAR TO RELEASE THE
PETITIONER ON BAIL IN THE EVENT OF HIS ARREST IN
CRIME NO.34/2022 FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE
UNDER SECTIONS 419, 420, 465 AND 468 READ WITH
SECTION 149 OF IPC, PENDING ON THE FILE OF PRL.
CIVIL JUDGE (SR. DN) AND CJM COURT, HUMNABAD
DIST: BIDAR.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
2
ORDER
This petition is filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C., by accused No.1, seeking to enlarge him on anticipatory bail in Crime No.34/2022, registered for offences punishable under Sections 419, 420, 465 and 468 read with Section 149 of iPC, pending on the file of Prl. Civil Judge (Sr. Dn) and CJM Court, Humnabad Dist: Bidar.
02. Heard the learned counsel for petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent
- State and perused the material on record.
03. Brief facts of the case are that, the complainant is the owner of open plots situated in Sy.No.124/A1 of Gadawanti Village Tq: Humanabad. The same was purchased from the previous owner for a consideration of Rs.35,000/- by way of registered sale deed. The mutation was effected in the name of complainant and he is paying the tax to the Gram Panchayat. Accused No.1 in collusion with other accused persons fabricated the documents as executed by the 3 complainant in his favour in respect of the above plot. Though, the complainant never agreed to sell the open plot and not executed the deed of agreement, the petitioner forged and fabricated the document, forging the signature of the complainant and changed the mutation in his name on the basis of alleged deed of agreement of sale, by colluding with other accused persons. Further, he sold the plot to accused Nos.5 and 6 through separate registered sale deeds etc.,
04. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the alleged incident is of the year 2018, but the complainant has approached the police after an inordinate delay of 3½ years and again there is delay in lodging the FIR, as the FIR is registered on 07.03.2022. He contends that the dispute is civil in nature and the offences alleged are not punishable with death or imprisonment for life. He submits that the petitioner is innocent and he has been implicated in a false case. Hence, he submits that by imposing any conditions, the petitioner may be enlarged on bail.
4
05. On the other hand, the learned High Court Government Pleader has opposed the relief sought by the petitioner contending that the investigation is still in progress. He contends that the petitioner is a habitual offender and he has been involved in committing similar offences and there are other cases registered against him. He submits that in the event of grant of relief to the petitioner, he may once again involve in committing similar offences. Therefore, he seeks to reject the petition.
06. It is the case of the prosecution that the petitioner herein fabricated the documents and by forging the signature of complainant, sold the plot belonging to the complainant to accused Nos.5 and 6. From the complaint averments it appears that the petitioner is the prime accused. The investigation is at its inception. At this stage it cannot be said that the dispute is purely civil in nature.
07. The learned High Court Government Pleader has furnished the details of other cases registered against 5 the petitioner, wherein it is seen that the petitioner has been involved in committing similar offences as well as other offences under the Indian Penal Code. The learned High Court Government Pleader has furnished the list of cases registered in Crime No.148/2012 under Sections 420, 419, 195, 504, 506 (2) of IPC, in Crime No.270/2018 under Sections 420, 465, 468, 471 of IPC, in Crime No.51/2019 under Sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 326, 307, 504 and 506 read with Section 34 of IPC, in Crime No.150/2020 under Sections 323, 324, 504 and 506 read with Section 34 of IPC, in Crime No.157/2020 under Sections 447, 504 and 506 of IPC and in Crime No.147/2021 under Sections 323, 441, 446, 504 and 506 (2) of IPC.
08. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a heart patient and he has undergone coronary angiography. Therefore, he submits that the petitioner may be enlarged on bail on medical ground. 6
09. The petitioner is absconding from the date of registration of the case. He is required for interrogation. Considering that he is an habitual offender, involved in committing similar offences as well as other offences, he is not entitled for the relief of anticipatory bail. The petitioner is not yet arrested. Whether he deserves bail on medical ground or not, can be considered after his interrogation.
The petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE KJJ