Karnataka High Court
Shri. Nagabushan S/O Late B. Gougeppa vs The State Of Karnataka on 4 September, 2017
Author: R.B Budihal
Bench: R.B Budihal
:1:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 04TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2017
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BUDIHAL R.B.
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.101722 OF 2017
BETWEEN:
SHRI. NAGABUSHAN S/O LATE B.GANGAPPA,
AGE ABOUT: 49 YEARS, OCC: REVENUE OFICER,
WORKING IN MUNCIPALITY, HOSAPETE,
TQ AND DIST: BALLARI.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. GIRISH S. HIREMATH, ADVOCATE)
A N D:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
BY P.S.I. TOWN POLICE,
HOSAPETE, THROUGH SPP,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA.
... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. ANAND K. NAVALAGIMATH, HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 438
OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE SEEKING TO DIRECTE THE
RESPONDENT TO RELEASE THE PETITONER ON BAIL, IN THE
EVENT OF HIS ARREST IN CRIME NO.73 OF 2017 OF TOWN
POLICE STATION FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER
SECTION 120B, 408, 409, 420, 468, 471 OF INDIAN PENAL
CODE.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS
DAY, THE COURT, MADE THE FOLLOWING:
:2:
ORDER
This petition is filed by the petitioner under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code seeking anticipatory bail, to direct the respondent Police to release the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest of the alleged offences punishable under Sections 408, 409, 420, 468, 471, 120B read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, registered in respondent/Police Station in Crime No.73/2017.
2. Brief facts of the prosecution case, complainant residing in the address as mentioned in the complaint, he is the owner of the land bearing survey No.105/E/1D measuring 0.83 acres complainant has executed power of attorney through gift deed to his daughter Smt.Shaik Ameera. The said properties are standing in the name of daughter of the complainant. Later on 07.06.2016, complainant to came to know that said properties were acquired by D.Venugopal and his followers buy putting temporary sheds in the said properties and taken the :3: photos colluding with the employees of the city Municipality and others, by name Janaki D/o Virupkshappa and others and they were with malafide intention to cheat the complainant to grab valuable properties, by creating fabricated documents and got mutated the name of accused No.1. On the basis of the said complaint case came to be registered against accused persons named in the complaint for the said offences.
3. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and also the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent/State.
4. The HCGP made the submission that looking the prosecution material, at the time when the alleged entries were made the present petitioner he was serving as a Revenue Officer. Therefore, he is also responsible for creation of such documents.
5. Perused the grounds urged in the bail petition, FIR, complaint and also the order passed by the learned :4: Sessions Judge rejecting the bail application of the present petitioner. Looking to the materials placed on record, there is no specific allegations, so far as the present petitioner is concerned. Now it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner, that because he was a Revenue Officer at the relevant point of time, suspicion was raised against the present petitioner that he also involved in committing the alleged offences, creating the documents. Therefore, looking to the materials and also the grounds urged in the bail petition, the petitioner has made out a case, when he is having such a apprehension because he has already received the notice dated 16.06.2017 from the police, this clearly goes to show that the apprehension of the petitioner of his arrest at the hands of the respondent police is well founded. The petitioner contended in the bail petition, he is innocent and not at all involved in committing the alleged offences and there is a false implication of the present petitioner. The alleged offences are also triable by the Magistrate Court, they are not :5: exclusively punishable with death or imprisonment for life. Hence, petitioner can be admitted to anticipatory bail.
6. Accordingly, petition is allowed. The respondent Police is directed to release the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest in Crime No.73/2017, registered for the above said offence, subject to the following conditions:
i. Petitioner has to execute personal bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- and furnish one surety for the like sum to the satisfaction of the arresting authority.
ii. Petitioner shall not tamper with any of the prosecution witnesses directly or indirectly.
iii. Petitioner has to make himself available before the I.O. for interrogation, as any when called for.
iv. Petitioner has to appear before the concerned Court within 30 days from the date of this order and to execute the personal bond and the surety bond.
Sd/-
JUDGE RHR/-