Karnataka High Court
Mount Batten Y Talwar vs State Of Karnataka on 18 June, 2018
Author: H.B.Prabhakara Sastry
Bench: H.B.Prabhakara Sastry
CRL.P.No.3838/2018
:1:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF JUNE, 2018
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE H.B.PRABHAKARA SASTRY
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.3838/2018
BETWEEN:
1 MOUNT BATTEN Y. TALWAR,
SON OF YELLAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
OCCUPATION : SERVICE,
R/O. HONNAVAR TALUK (U.K) - 581301
2 DAYANAND MESTA
SON OF KRISHNA
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,
OCC: RETIRED FROM SERVICE,
RESIDENT OF MUGALI,
GUNAVANTE, HONNAVAR - 581301
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. IRFANA NAZEER, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
BY RURAL PSI, BHATKAL, UTTARA KANNADA,
KARWAR REPRESENTED BY SPP,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BUILDING,
BENGALURU 560001
... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. RAJA RAGHAVENDRA NAIK, HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S. 438 OF CR.P.C.,
BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONERS PRAYING THAT THIS
HON'BLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO ENLARGE THE
CRL.P.No.3838/2018
:2:
PETITIONERS ON BAIL IN THE EVENT OF THEIR ARREST IN
CR.NO.148/2016 (C.C.NO.134/2018) OF BHATKAL RURAL P.S.,
UTTARA KANNADA DISTRICT FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE
UNDER SECTION 465, 468, 471, 193, 417, 420, 109 R/W.
SECTION 34 OF IPC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The present petition is filed by the accused Nos.3 and 4 under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. seeking their enlargement on anticipatory bail in Crime No.148/2016 of respondent complainant police station for the offence under Section 465, 468, 471, 193, 417, 420, 109 r/w. Section 34 of IPC.
2. The summary of the case of the prosecution is that based on a private complaint filed by Sri. Gopala S/o. Manjunath Achari in P.C.No.236/2016 before the Court of the JMFC at Bhatkal, the respondent/complainant police registered a complaint in their station Crime No.148/2016 against two accused by name Vani Gopal Achari and Vijay Redkar for the offence punishable under Section 465, 466, 471 and 34 of IPC.
CRL.P.No.3838/2018:3:
3. The summary of the complaint was that the accused No.1 Smt. Vani is legally wedded wife of complainant Sri Gopal. Out of their marriage they got two daughters by name Nagashree and Bhavani. They were also got admitted to the school. Based on the birth certificate issued by the competent Tahashildar. However, the said wife of the complainant i.e. accused No.1 Smt. Vani joined by accused No.2 Vijay Redkar with whom she started living got false birth certificates created in favour of her daughters even change in her daughters' name from Nagashree and Bhavani to Deeksha and Goutami respectively and also showing a different place of birth as their place of birth. Further in the said subsequent birth certificates, the accused also managed to show the name of the father of those two children as Vijaya Redkar, the accused No.2 instead of Gopal, the complainant. Thus, the complainant alleged that his wife Vani joined by accused No.2 has falsely got obtained false birth certificates with respect to his daughters. The complainant-police after conducting CRL.P.No.3838/2018 :4: investigation have filed charge sheet not only against accused Nos.1 and 2 shown in the complaint, but also against the present petitioners herein arraying them as accused Nos.3 and 4 respectively for the offence punishable under Section 465, 468, 471, 193, 417, 420, 109 r/w Section 34 of IPC. In the charge sheet, it is alleged that for the act of accused Nos.1 and 2 in obtaining false birth certificates with respect to two daughters whose original name were said to be Nagashree and Bhavani, the present petitioners being public servants have helped accused Nos.1 and 2 in they getting false birth certificates with different names for the very same two children.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners while reiterating his contention taken up in the petition, submitted that there is no material to show that the present petitioners/accused Nos.3 and 4 have in any manner issued any false certificates to the accused. Being government servants while discharging their duty as per the records placed before them, what they were CRL.P.No.3838/2018 :5: expected to do within their parameters of the power they have done it in a bonafide manner. As such, they cannot be accused of falsely creating any documents or issuing any fictitious document in favour of the accused Nos.1 and 2.
5. Learned HCGP who has filed objections for the respondent in the matter, while opposing the application submitted that the alleged act of the petitioners/accused Nos.3 and 4 does not come under the purview of they discharging their official duty. Thus, their act of enabling accused Nos.1 and 2 in obtaining false birth certificates is purely an intentional act, as such, they do not deserve the relief as sought for.
6. The primary accusation is against the accused Nos.1 and 2 about creating false birth certificates of two girls with respect to whom the complainant claims his fatherhood. The accusation against accused Nos.3 and 4 is aiding accused Nos.1 and 2 in they getting a false birth certificate with CRL.P.No.3838/2018 :6: respect to the very same two minor daughters. In such an alleged act what exactly was the role of the present petitioners/accused Nos.3 and 4 can be ascertained only in a full-fledged trial. It is only thereafter, it can be ascertained whether their alleged act comes within the parameters of their official duty or it exceeds the same. Further, the alleged offence are not heinous punishable with death or life imprisonment. It is also not the case of the prosecution that apprehension of the present petitioners is required for any investigation. Admittedly the investigation has already been completed and charge sheet has been filed. According to both side, the primary accused persons i.e. accused Nos.1 and 2 have already been enlarged on the relief of anticipatory bail by the Sessions Court.
7. The alleged offence is not punishable with death or life imprisonment. The apprehension of the prosecution that the petitioners/accused persons may flee from justice can be checked by imposing reasonable restriction. Accordingly, I proceed to pass following: CRL.P.No.3838/2018 :7:
ORDER The petition is allowed.
In the event the petitioners/accused person are apprehended by the Bhatkal Rural Police Station, Uttara Kannada District in Crime No.148/2016 (C.C.No.134/2018) for the offence punishable under Sections 465, 468, 471, 193, 417, 420, 109 r/w. Section 34 of IPC, they be enlarged on the relief of anticipatory bail subject to the conditions that;
(i) They shall execute a personal bond for a sum of `30,000/- each (Rupees Thirty Thousand Only) with two sureties each for the likesum to the satisfaction of the enlarging Authority.
(ii) They shall not hamper or tamper the prosecution witnesses in any manner.
(iii) They shall voluntarily surrender before the jurisdictional Magistrate within 15 days from today and may file an application for regular bail. In such an event, the said Court to dispose of the CRL.P.No.3838/2018 :8: said bail application not being influenced by the order passed in this matter.
(iv) They shall appear before the Court on all the dates of hearing.
Sd/-
JUDGE *Svh/-