Karnataka High Court
Mr. Shyamaraju vs State Of Karnataka By on 18 April, 2023
Author: K.Natarajan
Bench: K.Natarajan
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF APRIL, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.2005 OF 2023
BETWEEN
MR. SHYAMARAJU
S/O LATE THIMMEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
R/AT NO.212, OPP. MUNESWARA TEMPLE
SANJAYANAGAR MAIN ROAD,
NAGASHETTIHALLI
BANGALORE-560094
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI HASMATH PASHA, SENIOR COUNSEL
FOR 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-560001
...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
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 CRIMINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 05.04.2023, THIS DAY, THE COURT
MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This petition is filed by accused No.4 under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, for granting regular bail in Crime No.180/2022 registered by Halasurgate Police Station, for the offences punishable under Sections 255, 258, 259, 260, 465, 468, 473, 420 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, pending on the file of 1st ACMM, 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-moto complaint was registered by Halasurugate Police for the aforesaid offences against accused persons on 19.07.2022, stating that they have got the information that some persons were selling the fake e-stamps at Kandaya Bhavana, Bengaluru. Hence, the complainant set up a 3 D-Kayath customer by sending one Naveen Kumar, Head Constable 11048 for purchasing the old stamp paper. Accordingly, the D-Kayath customer/police men went and met one Karthik and asked about old stamp papers for the face value of Rs.50/- five in numbers and stamp papers for the face value of Rs.10/- five in numbers. The said accused has assured and has taken him to meet One Vishwanath/accused No.1. Subsequently, the said Vishwanath undertook to give the E-stamp and asked to give a sum of Rs.10,000/- as advance amount and to give 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., the accused No.3/Venkatesh and petitioner-accused No.4 who brought the said e-stamp papers. Then police trapped them and seized ten stamp papers under seizure panchanama and arrested them and remanded to judicial custody. The petitioner approached this Court twice and the bail application was dismissed as withdrawn on 23.9.2022 and subsequently, the successive 4 bail petition was dismissed on 18.01.2023 on merits. Now, the petitioner is once again before this Court.
4. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner is in custody from July 2022, investigation is completed and charge sheet is also filed. It is further contended that the petitioner was in possession of some old e-stamp papers and he was not selling with e- stamp papers there is no loss to the exchequer. The offence under Section 255 of IPC is not attracted. Sections 468 and 465 of IPC were punishable only for seven years. Therefore, prayed for the grant of bail.
5. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader has seriously objected the petition and contended that this Court has already dismissed the petition on merits and now, there is no changed circumstances and hence, prayed for dismissing the petition.
6. Having heard the arguments of learned counsel for the parties, perused the records.
5
7. Perusal of the records reveal that this Court has already rejected the bail petition of the petitioner on 18.01.2023 and now the present petition is came to be filed within one and half month of the rejection of previous bail petition. Absolutely, there is no changed circumstance. This Court has elaborately dealt with the matter in the earlier petition and has held that the petitioner was caught red handed while bringing the fake e-stamp papers and the old stamp papers were in possession of the petitioner, which were purchased by some of the persons by creating the false or fake GPA and agreement of sale in order to knock out the landed property by filing false suits before the civil Courts by putting antedates on the e-stamps. This Court has stated that because of selling the fake stamp papers, the accused persons are misusing the same by filing the suits against the innocent site owners. If this petitioner is granted bail, there is every possibility of tempering the witnesses and absconding the from the case is not ruled out. The bail applications of co-accused persons were also rejected by 6 this Court. Such being the case, absolutely there is no changed circumstances within one and a half month of dismissal of the earlier petition. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for bail.
Accordingly, the successive bail petition of petitioner- accused No.4 is hereby dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE CS