Karnataka High Court
N. Mallikarjuna S/O N. Mrudreshappa vs State Of Karnataka, By on 6 June, 2017
Author: R.B Budihal
Bench: R.B Budihal.
:1:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF JUNE 2017
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BUDIHAL. R.B
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.101035/2017
BETWEEN:
N. MALLIKARJUNA
S/O N.RUDRESHAPPA
AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: 22ND WARD,
SANKALAPURA VILLAGE,
TQ: HOSAPETE,
DIST: BALLARI.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI DAYANAND M BANDI, ADV.)
AND
STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY
EXTENSION POLICE STATION,
HOSAPETE,
DISTRICT BALLARI,
REPRESENTED BY SPP,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI PRAVEEN K.UPPAR, HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION
438 OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER
ON ANTICIPATORY BAIL IN CONNECTION WITH CRIME
:2:
NO.22/2017 LODGED BY EXTENSION POLICE STATION,
HOSAPETE, UNDER SECTIONS 177, 468, 471, 417, 420,
120B AND 34 OF IPC AND DIRECT THE CONCERNED
POLICE AUTHORITIES TO RELEASE THE PETITIONER ON
BAIL IN THE EVENT OF HIS ARREST.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS
DAY, THE COURT, MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This petition is filed by the petitioner-accused No.2 under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. seeking anticipatory bail, to direct the respondent Police to release the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest of the alleged offences punishable under Sections 177, 468, 471, 420, 417, 120B r/w 34 of IPC registered in respondent-Police Station Crime No.22/2017.
2. Brief facts of the prosecution case that complaint came to be registered by Smt.N.K.Shilpa, a resident of N.C.Colony, Hosapete before the respondent police on 06.04.2017 against four persons as mentioned in the complaint. The allegation in the complaint was :3: that 43 plots were formed in Sy.No.198F, M.J.Nagar, Hosapete. The complainant's father had purchased four plots numbered from Plot No.27 to Plot No.30. During the lifetime of the complainant's father, he had sold Plot NO.30 and the remaining site No.29 was in the name of her mother while site No.27, 28 and 29 was in her possession. The further allegation that Plot Nos.27 to 29 had been assigned a Single Assessment No.17269 and the title and possession of the sites was with the complainant. The accused Nos.1 to 4 hatched a criminal conspiracy with common intention to knock of the plots belonging to the complainant in conspiracy with the officials of the Hosapete Nagar Sabhe, created a plot bearing Door No.1168, Assessment No.1168 and gave the schedule of the plot Nos.27 to 29 belonging to this created document, got the mutation entries and entered in the municipal records. On the basis of the complaint, case came to be registered against accused Nos.1 to 4. :4:
3. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-accused No.2 and also the learned HCGP appearing for the respondent-State.
4. I have perused the grounds urged in the bail petition, FIR, complaint and other materials produced along with the petition so also order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Ballari (sitting at Hosapete).
5. It is contended by the petitioner that he is innocent and not involved in committing the alleged offence and there is false implication of the petitioner in the case. Petitioner has undertaken to abide by any conditions to be imposed by this Court. It is also contended by the petitioner that looking to the allegations made in the complaint and other materials, it is purely civil in nature and hence, criminal proceedings cannot be maintained. It is no doubt true, the matter is still under investigation. The alleged offences are triable by the Magistrate Court and are not :5: exclusively punishable with death or imprisonment for life. Hence, by imposing stringent conditions, petitioner can be admitted to anticipatory bail.
6. Accordingly, petition is allowed. The respondent Police is directed to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest in connection with Crime No.22/2017 registered for the above said offence, subject to the following conditions:
i. Petitioner has to execute personal bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- and furnish one surety for the like sum to the satisfaction of the arresting authority. ii. Petitioner shall not tamper with any of the prosecution witnesses directly or indirectly.
iii. Petitioner has to make himself available before the IO for interrogation, as and when called for. iv. Petitioner has to appear before the concerned Court within 30 days from the date of this order and to execute the personal bond and the surety bond.
Sd/-
JUDGE BSR