Karnataka High Court
Ravishankar.M.C vs State By Karnataka on 17 March, 2023
Author: Rajendra Badamikar
Bench: Rajendra Badamikar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF MARCH, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA BADAMIKAR
CRIMINAL PETITION No.645/2023
BETWEEN:
RAVISHANKAR M.C.,
S/O LATE CHANDRASHEKARAIAH,
AGED 52 YEARS,
R/A. NO.15, 18TH CROSS,
8TH 'C' CROSS, ONKAR NAGAR,
ANDRAHALLI,
BENGALURU-560 091.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. B. RAMESH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
STATE BY KARNATAKA,
HALSURUGATE POLICE STATION,
REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH BUILDING,
DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BENGALURU-560 001.
... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. SHANKAR H.S., HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 OF
CR.P.C, PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN
CR.NO.180/2022 OF HALASURGATE P.S., BANGALORE FOR THE
OFFENCE P/U/S 420, 465, 468, 471, 255, 258, 259, 260 AND
120(B) R/W 34 OF IPC ON THE FILE OF THE LXII ADDL. CITY CIVIL
AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE(CCH-63) IN
S.C.NO.1916/2022.
2
THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR
ORDERS ON 10.03.2023, COMING ON FOR 'PRONOUNCEMENT OF
ORDERS', THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This petition is filed by the petitioner-accused No.8 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking regular bail in Cr.No.180/2022 of Halasurgate Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 465, 468, 471, 255, 258, 259, 260, 120B r/w Section 134 of IPC pending on the file of LXII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru in SC No.1916/2022.
2. The brief factual matrix leading to the case are as under:
On the basis of a credible information received by the police in respect of selling fake stamp papers at Kandaya Bhavana by some persons, the police have set up Decoy customer for purchasing the old stamp paper. Accordingly, the said Decoy customer/police officer met one accused No.2-Karthik and requested for an old stamp paper of face value of Rs.50 and Rs.10. The said accused No.2-Karthik introduced the accused 3 No.1-Vishwanath and Rs.10,000/- was paid in advance for purchasing the e-stamp paper and he was told that they are charging Rs.5,000/- for stamp paper of face value of Rs.10/- and Rs.6000/- for face value of the stamp paper of Rs.50/-.
As per the case of the prosecution, a trap was laid on 19.07.2022 at 7.30 a.m., and when accused No.4 brought the e-stamp paper, the police trapped and seized the stamp paper. During investigation certain fake stamp papers, franking machines etc., were recovered and the police arrested the other accused. During the course of the investigation, on the basis of statement of one Madesha the present petitioner was also implicated and his shop was raided, and from there some fake stamp papers were also recovered. Thereafter, the Investigating Officer submitted the charge sheet against the present petitioner and other accused. The present petitioner is arraigned as accused No.8. The petitioner has approached the learned Sessions Judge and the learned Sessions Judge has rejected the bail petition. Then the 4 petitioner has approached this Court and later on he withdrew the bail petition and again moved a fresh bail petition before the learned Sessions Judge and same came to be rejected. Against these concurrent findings, the petitioner has approached this Court.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned HCGP.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner-accused No.8 is an innocent person and he has been falsely implicated at the instance of statement said to have been given by one Madesha and there is no recovery from him. He would also contend that the bail petitions filed by the other accused were rejected only because they are the habitual offenders. But no such allegations are forthcoming as against the present petitioner. It is further asserted that the investigation is concluded and charge sheet has been laid down and the presence of petitioner is no more required 5 by the Investigating Agency. Hence, he would seek for admitting him on bail.
5. Per contra, the learned HCGP seriously opposed the bail petition contending that the present petitioner has supplied the fake stamp papers to accused No.10, who is the beneficiary and his bail petition was already rejected by this Court. It is also alleged that the charge sheet material clearly disclose that there is specific overtacts alleged against the present petitioner and material documents have been recovered from his shop and under such circumstances, he would contend that the act of the petitioner is not only against the customers but against the State also and it would directly affect the economic status of the State, which cannot be permitted. Hence, he would seek for rejection of the bail petition.
6. Having heard the arguments and perusing the records, it is alleged that the present petitioner along with other accused was involved in fake stamp papers 6 scam and they used to sell old stamp papers as well as fake stamps on higher rate and thereby used to cause loss to the ex-chequer. It is also evident from the allegations that they use to create fake stamp papers and fake documents with anti-date, which definitely affecting not only the economy of the State but also affecting genuine owners, as the allegations disclose that by using fake stamp papers, false affidavits and fake notary stamp has been created and it is used for transfer of the property under impersonation. These acts of the petitioners cannot be taken in a light way. The allegations of the prosecution disclose that the present petitioner on 20.07.1990 purchased a fake stamp papers from accused No.2 and then sold it to accused No.10 which was used for transfer of the property on the basis of fake documents which was created.
7. The allegations of the prosecution further disclose that on 24.05.2002 again petitioner has purchased a fake stamp paper from accused No.3 and 7 sold it to accused No.11 which is again used for creation of a fabricated document in the form of GPA. These allegation disclose that the petitioner having knowledge has purchased fake stamp papers and assisted the other accused in creating the fake documents. The petitioner is involved in similar offences and the learned Sessions Judge has observed all these aspects in his order in detail and it is also observed that investigation under Section 173(8) is still under progress. This offence of fake stamp papers is serious thing which not only affect the State economy but also affects the genuine purchasers and also the original owners. Such activities cannot be taken in a light way and looking to the material evidence on record, question of admitting the petitioner on regular bail at this juncture does not arise at all as there is every possibility of he tampering prosecution witnesses and indulging in similar offences.
Under such circumstances, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, this is not a fit case wherein the discretion can be exercised in favour of the petitioner 8 and as such the petition being devoid of any merits does not serve for consideration and accordingly, the petition stands dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE DS