Karnataka High Court
Sri K B Muniraju vs State By on 29 January, 2018
Author: R.B Budihal
Bench: R.B Budihal
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2018
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE BUDIHAL R.B.
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.9668/2017
C/W
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.9669/2017
IN CRIMINAL PETITION NO.9668/2017
BETWEEN:
SRI K B MUNIRAJU
S/O BANDEPPA
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
R/A CHIKKAKORATI VILLAGE
NANDAGUDI HOBLI
HOSAKOTE TALUK
BANGALORE RURAL DIST
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI.N RAVISHANKAR, ADV.)
AND
STATE BY
NANDAGUDI POLICE
HOSAKOTE TALUK
REPRESENTED BY ITS
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT BUILDING
BANGALORE-560001.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI.CHETAN DESAI, HCGP)
2
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION
438 CR.P.C PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON
BAIL IN THE EVENT OF HIS ARREST IN CR.NO.201/2017
OF NANDAGUDI POLICE STATION, BENGALURU DISTRICT
FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 120(B),416,417,419,420 AND
506 R/W 34 OF IPC
IN CRIMINAL PETITION NO.9669/2017:
SMT LOLIKA
W/O CHANNAKESHAVA
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
R/A CHIKKAKORATI VILLAGE
NANDAGUDI HOBLI
HOSAKOTE TALUK
BANGALORE RURAL DIST
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI.N RAVISHANKAR, ADV.)
AND
STATE BY
NANDAGUDI POLICE
HOSAKOTE TALUK
REPRESENTED BY ITS
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT BUILDING
BANGALORE-560001.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI.CHETAN DESAI, HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION
438 CR.P.C PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON
BAIL IN THE EVENT OF HIS ARREST IN CR.NO.201/2017
OF NANDAGUDI P.S., BANGLAORE DISTRICT FOR THE
3
OFFENCE P/U/S 120B,416,417,419,420,506 R/W 34 OF
IPC.
THESE CRIMINAL PETITIONS COMING ON FOR
ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Since these two petitions are in respect of same crime and since common questions of law and facts are involved in these two petitions, they are taken up together to dispose of them by this common order.
2. Crl.P.9668/2017 is filed by petitioner/accused No.1 and Crl.P.9669/2017 is filed by petitioner/accused No.2, both the petitions are filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. seeking anticipatory bail, to direct the respondent-police to release the petitioners on bail in the event of their arrest for the offences punishable under Sections 120B, 416, 417, 419, 420 and 506 read with 34 of IPC registered in respondent police station Crime No.201/2017. On the basis of 4 referring the case by the concerned Magistrate Court to the Police for investigation and report, complaint was filed in PCR No.204/2017.
3. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners/accused and also the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State in respect of both the petitions.
4. The main allegation as per the prosecution case and the averments made in the complaint that agreement of sale came to be executed in favour of the complainant by petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2. But it is the prosecution case that accused No.2 is not at all the wife of accused No.1, therefore, there is a misrepresentation in executing the agreement of sale. Hence, by making such allegations private complaint came to be filed. The matter is referred to the Police, which is still under investigation.
5
5. As submitted by the learned HCGP serious allegation of misrepresentation and impersonation in executing the document is alleged by the prosecution through the private complaint. Therefore, when the matter is still under investigation and in view of such serious allegation, I am of the opinion that these are not the fit cases to exercise discretion in favour of the petitioners. Accordingly, both the petitions are hereby rejected.
Sd/-
JUDGE BSR