Yallappa Doddahanamant Jadakin vs The State Of Karnataka on 14 December, 2020

[Cites 6, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Yallappa Doddahanamant Jadakin vs The State Of Karnataka on 14 December, 2020

Bench: Mohammad Nawaz

       IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
               DHARWAD BENCH

  DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2020

                    BEFORE

  THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ

              CRL.P.NO.101521/2020

BETWEEN

YALLAPPA DODDAHANAMANT JADAKIN
AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. ARABHAVI, TQ. MUDALAGI,
DIST. BELAGAVI-591218.

                                      ...PETITIONER

(BY SRI. GIRISH S HIREMATH, ADV.)

AND

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY STATE S.P.P.
THROUGH GOKAK TOWN POLICE STATION,
GOKAK, BELAGAVI.
THROUGH HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH-580011

                                    .....RESPONDENT

(BY SRI.V.S.KALASURMATH, ADVOCATE)

    THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/SEC.438
OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO ALLOW THE PETITION AND
                              2




RELEASE        THE   PETITIONER    ON BAIL IN
CRIME NO.129/2020 OF GOKAK POLICE STATION,
FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION
468, 469, 471 AND 420 OF THE INDIAN PENAL CODE,
1860.

     THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

                       ORDER

This petition is filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. seeking to enlarge the petitioner-accused No.1 on anticipatory bail in Crime No.129/2020 of Gokak town Police Station, registered for offences punishable under Sections 468, 469, 471 and 420 of IPC.

2. Heard the learned counsel for petitioner and learned HCGP for respondent-State. Perused the material on record.

3. The complaint is lodged by one Parvathi D/o Appayya Jadakina. It is alleged that accused No.1 being her uncle, accused No.2 3 being the son of accused No.1 and accused No.3, son-in-law of accused No.1, by colluding with revenue officials got the name of accused No.1 mutated in the RTC extract in respect of land measuring 25 guntas in Survey No.371/2 situated at Arabhavi village, by forging a gift deed as if the property was gifted to accused No.1 by her father. It is alleged that accused Nos.2 and 3 are the attesting witnesses and on the basis of the said alleged gift deed, they have got mutation entry bearing MR No.291, as such accused persons committed the above offences.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegations are false. He submits that the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner has been now challenged before the Deputy Commissioner and the same is pending consideration. He submits that at this 4 stage, there is no material to show that the accused persons by colluding with revenue officials have got mutation entry in the name of the petitioner herein. He submits that the petitioner is an agriculturist owning movable and immovable properties and he is ready and willing to abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this Court. He further submits that the offences alleged are not punishable with death or imprisonment for life. Hence, prays to allow the petition.

5. Per contra, the learned HCGP has contended that the petitioner along with accused Nos.2 and 3 has forged a document styled as gift deed by impersonating complainant's father and got the mutation entry in his favour. He submits that the investigation is still in 5 progress. Accordingly, he sought to reject the petition.

6. The allegations are that petitioner- accused No.1 got his name mutated in the revenue records with the help of accused Nos.2 and 3 and other revenue officials, by impersonating the complainant's father by creating a bogus gift deed as if it was executed by the complainant's father. It is seen that prior to the said mutation entry, names of complainant's father and accused No.1 appeared jointly in the RTC. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the mutation entry in the name of accused No.1 was challenged before the Assistant Commissioner and the same was set aside, however, the said order has been challenged before the Deputy Commissioner and the same is pending consideration. 6

7. The allegations made in the complaint is a matter for investigation and trial. The offences alleged are not punishable with death or imprisonment for life. The petitioner has undertaken to abide by conditions. He is a permanent resident of Arabhavi in Mundalagi taluk, Belagavi. Hence, by imposing suitable conditions, relief sought can be granted. Accordingly, the following:

ORDER Petition is allowed.

In the event of arrest of the petitioner in Crime No.129/2020 of Gokak Town Police Station, registered for offences punishable under Sections 468, 469, 471 and 420 of IPC, he shall be released on bail subject to the following conditions:

a. Petitioner shall appear before the Investigation Officer within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order and shall execute a bond in a sum of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the investigation officer.

b. Petitioner shall mark his attendance before the concerned police station on 1 s t and 15 t h of every month between 10.00 am and 5.00 pm, and shall cooperate with the investigation.

c. Petitioner shall not put any threat or inducement to the complainant.

d. Petitioner shall not tamper with the prosecution witnesses either directly or indirectly.

e. Petitioner shall furnish proof of his correct residential address and shall inform regarding change in his address, if any.

f. Petitioner shall be regular in attending the Court proceedings.

Sd/-

JUDGE Vmb

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court