Karnataka High Court
V Srinivasa vs State Of Karnataka on 19 September, 2023
Author: K.Natarajan
Bench: K.Natarajan
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.5336 OF 2023
BETWEEN
V SRINIVASA
S/O VENKATESHAPPA
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
R/O 16TH CROSS,
1ST MAIN, WARD NO.2,
NEAR RAMALINGAM HOUSE,
GANGHI NAGARA
KOLAR - 563 101
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI GIREESHA J.T., ADVOCATE)
AND
STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY GULPET P S
REP BY SPP
HIGH COURT BUILDING
BANGALORE - 560 001
... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI K. NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 438
OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, PRAYING TO
ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN THE EVENT OF HIS
ARREST IN CR.NO.62/2022 OF GULPET P.S., KOLAR DISTRICT
FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 409, 465,
468, 471, 120(B), 420, 201 READ WITH SECTION 34 OF IPC
NOW PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE LEARNED II ADDITIONAL
CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C. COURT AT KOLAR.
2
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 14.09.2023, THIS DAY, THE COURT
MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This successive anticipatory bail petition is filed by the petitioner-accused No.1 under Section 438 of Cr.P.C for granting anticipatory bail in C.C.No.684/2022 arising out of Crime No.62/2022 of Gulpet Police Station, Kolar District and charge sheeted for the offences punishable under Sections 409, 465, 467, 468, 471, 420, 120B, 201, read with 34 of IPC.
2. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner and learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State.
3. The case of the prosecution is that on the complaint of one Nagaraj, Tahsildar of Kolar Taluk filed on 23.6.2022, alleging that he has received a file pertaining to the land in Sy.No.127 measuring 3 acre and 23 guntas situated at Alahalli village Vokkaleri Hobli, Kolar Taluk which is locked land came for sanction in favour of Sunlarge Properties Ltd.,property belonging to the accused 3 No.7, with the sanction order of the Deputy Commissioner, Kolar. On verification of the order, the complainant had doubt about the order and on confirmation with the Deputy Commissioner Office, it was found fake. After registering complaint, the police arrested one of the accused persons and on interrogation it was revealed this petitioner being the Revenue Inspector as per the submission report made by local inspection for clearing the file, for grant of locked land to the accused No.7 (B.Sudhakara Pai, Director, Sunlarge Properties Pvt. Ltd., Bengaluru). This petitioner is absconding from the beginning, he is accused No.3 in the FIR and accused No.1 in the charge sheet. He has moved anticipatory bail in Crl.P.No.6953/2022 & connected case, which came to be dismissed on 16.8.2022 by this court, on the ground that he is required for custodial interrogation. After rejection of the bail petition, once again the petitioner is before this court.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the investigation is completed charge sheet has been filed. The FSL report reveals there is no forgery 4 of the signature of this petitioner. The co-accused persons are granted bail by the High Court. The present petitioner is ready to abide by any conditions, hence prayed for granting anticipatory bail.
5. Per contra, learned HCGP seriously objected that he is required for custodial interrogation. The charge sheet was filed against other accused persons by showing this petitioner as absconding. He is a Revenue Inspector and the main accused who destroyed the original file and prepared the fake inspection report, by suppressing the earlier report and submitted for approval. It is also alleged in the charge sheet that he has prepared the Mahazar by suppressing all the material facts and placed for clearing the file. He himself endorsed the file for sending the file to the Tahsildar for approval. Therefore, his presence is necessary for filing additional charge sheet during interrogation, his specimen signature is required to be obtained for getting expert report but he is absconding since more than one year, inspite of rejection of earlier petition. Hence, prayed for dismissing the petition. 5 Learned HCGP also relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in criminal appeal arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.213/2021 in case of G.R.Ananda Babu V/s The State of Tamil Nadu & Anr.
6. Upon hearing arguments, perused the records, this court while considering the earlier bail petition, by way of detailed order, had rejected the bail petition. It is seen from the record, this petitioner was Revenue Inspector who prepared the Spot Mahazar/inspection report and submitted the Mahazar, along with the endorsement for clearing the file and sending the same for approval of Tahsildar. It is also seen from the charge sheet record that the Deputy Commissioner's signature was forged by the accused persons in order to knock out the locked land of the Government worth more than Rs.6 crores. This petitioner played very vital role in preparing the panchanama by destroying the earlier panchanama and cleared the file for order of the Tahsildar by forging the signature of the Deputy Commissioner and prepared the sanction order in the name of the Deputy commissioner, 6 which cannot be taken as lightly and this Court had rejected the anticipatory bail petition one year back, inspite of the same, this petitioner being Government official absconding for more than one year. The police are also not able to trace the accused for the purpose of arrest and to get the specimen signature of the accused and interrogating him regarding forging the signature of the Deputy Commissioner and fabricating the order of the Deputy Commissioner. This petitioner is required for custodial interrogation. Inspite of rejecting his bail petition, he is still absconding for last one year and he has come before this court with the same grounds without any fresh grounds or fresh materials. The police also mentioned in the charge sheet that after arresting this petitioner and interrogation, they have filed additional charge sheet in respect of forgery and the false report. Such being the case, I am of the view the petitioner has not made out sufficient ground for granting anticipatory bail, in this successive bail petition. The Hon'ble Supreme 7 Court in G.R.Anand Babu's case stated supra has held as under:
"As a matter of fact, successive anticipatory bail applications ought not to be entertained and more so, when the case diary and the status report, clearly indicated that the accused (respondent No.
2) is absconding and not cooperating with the investigation. The specious reason of change in circumstances cannot be invoked for successive anticipatory bail applications, once it is rejected by a speaking order and that too by the same Judge.
To observe sobriety, we refrain from making any further observation, except to observe, that the impugned order, to say the least, is perverse; and also because no prejudice should be caused to respondent No. 2 and affect the trial against him"
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the said case had cancelled the anticipatory bail and allowed the police to take the accused in the custody for the purpose of interrogation.
7. Therefore in my view, though the offence is triable by Magistrate, but it is a very serious offence committed by the accused for forging the Deputy 8 Commissioner's signature and fabricating the Mahazar for knocking out the landlocked property of the Government for the sanction of the accused No.7.
Therefore, the successive anticipatory bail petition filed by the petitioner/accused No.1, V.Srinivasa, is hereby dismissed.
The petitioner is directed to surrender and seek regular bail.
Sd/-
JUDGE AKV