Karnataka High Court
Mr Shyamaraju vs State Of Karnataka on 18 January, 2023
Author: K.Natarajan
Bench: K.Natarajan
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.11130 OF 2022
BETWEEN
MR SHYAMARAJU
S/O LATE THIMMEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
R/AT NO. 212,
OPP. MUNESWARA TEMPLE
SANJAYANAGAR MAIN ROAD,
NAGASHETTIHALLI,
BANGALORE - 560 094 ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI HASHMATH PASHA, SENIOR COUNSEL
ALONG WITH SRI KARIAPPA N.A., ADVOCATE)
AND
STATE OF KARNATAKA BY
HALASURUGATE POLICE STATION
BANGALORE 560008
(INVESTIGATED BY CCB POLICE
BANGALORE)
(REPRESENTED BY LEARNED
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BANGALORE )
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI ROHITH B.J., HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439
OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, PRAYING TO
ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CR.NO.180/2022 OF
2
HALASURGATE P.S., BANGALORE FOR THE OFFENCES
PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 255, 258, 259, 260, 465, 468,
471, 420 READ WITH SECTION 34 OF IPC.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 12.01.2023, THIS DAY, THE COURT
MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This petition is filed by the petitioner-accused No.4 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., for granting regular bail in Crime No.180/2022 registered by Halasurgate Police Station and charge sheeted for the offences punishable under Sections 255, 258, 259, 260, 465, 468, 473, 420 read with 34 of IPC, pending on the file of I Addl. CMM Court, Bengaluru
2. Heard the arguments of learned Senior counsel for the petitioner and learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State.
3. The case of the prosecution is that suo motu complaint was registered by the Halasurgate police station against the petitioner and others on 19.07.2022, for the aforesaid offences, alleging that they received credible 3 information that some persons were selling the fake e- stamps at Kandaya Bhavana, Bengaluru. Therefore, the police set up a D-Kayath customer for purchasing the old stamp papers near Kandaya Bhavana. Accordingly, the D- Kayath police man met one Karthik, asked about the old stamp paper for the face value of Rs.50/- five in numbers and stamp papers for the value of Rs.10/- five in numbers. Then Karthik asked to meet one Vishwanath/ accused No.1 and later, the said Vishwanath told D-Kayath police to give a sum of Rs.10,000/- as advance amount and for the purpose of giving e-stamp for the face value of Rs.10/-, they have charged Rs.5,000/- and to give e-stamp for the face value of Rs.50/-, they have charged Rs.6,000/-. Accordingly, on 19.07.2022 at 07:30 a.m., accused No.3 and petitioner-accused NO.4 brought the said e-stamp papers. Then police trapped them and seized ten stamp papers under seizure panchanama. During investigation, the accused were arrested and remanded to judicial custody. The bail application of this petitioner came to be 4 dismissed on 23.09.2022. Now the petitioner is once again before this Court after filing of the charge sheet.
4. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner is only running the xerox shop and accused No.3 gave hard disc for getting the xerox copy. Accordingly, he took out the printout and gave it. The petitioner was found with some old stamp papers which were seized by the police and the same were not the e-stamp papers in order to say that they are the counterfeit stamp papers. The learned Senior Counsel further contended that there is no loss to the State exchequer and it cannot be said that because of printing the old stamp papers, it causes loss to the government. It is contended that it is like old currency notes printing after demonetization of the currency notes. Therefore, it cannot be constituted an offence under Section 255 of IPC and remaining offences attracts Sections 468 and 465 of IPC, which are punishable only with seven years. The investigation is already completed and charge sheet has 5 been filed. Therefore, the learned Senior Counsel prayed for granting bail.
5. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader has seriously objected the petition and contended that this Court has rejected the bail petition of all the other accused persons. This petitioner was found with the old stamp papers and he was brought along with accused No.3 and caught red handed. Thereafter, his shop was raided and some more documents were seized. Because of the petitioner and accused No.3, the other accused persons used to receive the old stamp papers for creating the false general power of attorney and agreement of sale and using to file false complaints and suits before the Courts to cheat the public at large. Therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioner has not committed the offence alleged against him. If at all the petitioner is only a xerox shop owner, the question of keeping the fake stamp papers does not arise. The petitioner used to take out the printouts in collusion with accused No.3 and he used to charge more money for 6 the stamp papers, which is revealed from investigation. Therefore, prayed for rejecting the bail petition.
6. Having heard the arguments of learned counsel parties and on perusal of the records, which reveals that one of the accused created the general power of attorney for the year 1970 for getting the entire award amount in respect of the lands acquired by the authorities. There are many number of accused persons involved in the case for receiving the fake stamp papers from the accused Nos.1 and 3 and the petitioner herein. The other accused have fabricated the documents by putting antedate on the old stamp papers purchased from the petitioner and accused No.3. The offences alleged against the petitioner and others are, creating the fake stamp papers, facilitating the other accused to cheat the public at large by creating the fake documents and filing the frivolous litigation before the Civil Court and collecting money from the innocent site owners under the guise of agreement of sale and the GPA. The other accused were involved in selling the e-stamp 7 papers which caused loss to the State exchequer. The petitioner is actively participated in collusion with accused No.3 and used to print the stamp papers for the purpose of registration, but it is racket behind the petitioner and the other accused persons involved in selling the fake stamp papers. This petitioner was also caught red handed with stamp paper. Therefore, it cannot be considered as a lighter offence as argued by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner. If the petitioner is granted bail, there is every possibility of tampering the witnesses and absconding from the case is not ruled out. This Court has already rejected the bail petition of the other accused persons. Hence, the petitioner is not entitled for bail.
Accordingly, this petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE CS