Karnataka High Court
H.B. Padmavathi W/O Gurulingaiah vs State Of Karnataka on 10 August, 2017
Author: R.B Budihal
Bench: R.B Budihal.
:1:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF AUGUST 2017
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BUDIHAL. R.B.
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.101711/2017
BETWEEN:
1. H.B. PADMAVATHI,
W/O GURULINGAIAH,
AGE: 41 YEARS,
OCC: HEADMASTER OF
KARMOR VIDHYA PEETA,
P.K. HALLI, HOSAPETE,
R/O: MEHABOOB NAGAR,
JAMBUNATH ROAD,
HOSAPETE.
2. GURULINGAIAH,
S/O GURUBASAIAH,
AGE: 50 YEARS,
OCC: PHYSICAL TEACHER OF
KARMOR VIDHYA PEETA,
P.K. HALLI, HOSAPETE,
R/O: J.P. NAGAR,
MADIHI RESIDENCY APARTMENT,
1ST CROSS, HOSAPETE.
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI V.S. KALASURMATH, ADVOCATE)
AND
STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH,
:2:
THROUGH PSI,
GADIGANUR POLICE STATION,
GADIGANUR, HOSAPETE.
... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI RAJA RAGHJAVENDRA NAIK, HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 438
OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO PASS AN ORDER DIRECTING TO
ENLARGE THE PETITIONER NO.1 AND 2 ON BAIL IN
GADIGANUR P.S. CRIME NO.34 OF 2017 FOR THE ALLEGED
OFFENCES UNDER SECTION 197, 199, 420, 465, 468, 120(B) OF
IPC, IN CASE OF THEIR ARREST IN SO FAR AS PETITIONERS
CONCERNED.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
THE COURT, MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This petition is filed by the petitioners-accused No.1 and 2 under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. seeking anticipatory bail, to direct the respondent Police to release the petitioners on bail in the event of their arrest of the alleged offences punishable under Sections 197, 199, 420, 465, 468, 120-B of I.P.C. P.C.No.14/2015 and FIR came to be registered in respondent Police Station Crime No.34/2017.
:3:
2. The allegations in the complaint as per the case of the prosecution one Mailar Linganaik, President of KVP Rural High School, Hospete who is the President of Karmoor Vidhya Peetha at P.K.Halli who has been authorized for administration of the school to the petitioners No.1 and 2. Accordingly, petitioners/accused have taken administration over the school and they have created resignation letter and forged the signature of the complainant and removed his name from the registration authority and to register their name in the registration authority of the said school without giving any information to the complainant. Based on this complaint, case came to be filed by the complainant against the petitioners and other accused persons.
3. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners-accused No.1 and 2 and also the learned HCGP appearing for the respondent- State.
:4:
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners made the submission that petitioners have not at all involved in committing such offences, but the false case has been cooked up by the complainant president in order to involve the petitioners in such a case. He also made the submission that even prosecution has not placed any prima facie material to show the involvement of the petitioners in committing such offences. He submitted that they are working in the said institution and having apprehension of the arrest at the hands of the respondent/police when they approached the learned Sessions Judge, the learned Sessions Judge rejected the bail application holding that there is one more similar case of the similar nature of offences. Hence, learned counsel made the submission that any reasonable conditions can be put and petitioners may be admitted to anticipatory bail.
:5:
5. Per contra, the learned HCGP made the submission that looking to the contents of the complaint itself serious allegations are made that the petitioners are involved in creating false document that there is a resignation letter forged by the president i.e. complainant, deleted his name from the registration authority and got their name entered in the registration authority. Hence, he made the submission that the observation made by the learned Sessions Judge that there is one more similar case of the similar nature of offence and accordingly bail petition came to be rejected. Hence, the learned HCGP made the submission that the alleged offences are very serious in nature and hence petitioners are not entitled to be granted with anticipatory bail.
6. I have perused the grounds urged in the bail petition, FIR, complaint and other materials produced along with the petition, so also copy of the bail order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Hosapete. :6:
7. Looking to the allegations made in the complaint as submitted by the learned High Court Govt. Pleader, serious allegations are made that they involved in creating false document, forging signature of the president of the said institution, who is the complainant. The further allegations are also prima facie goes to show that using such forged signature documents they have also proceeded to get name of the complainant deleted from the registration authorities and get their name entered. Therefore, looking to the very nature of the allegations and the materials placed, I am of the opinion that the custodial interrogation of these two petitioners is necessary and it is not a fit case for anticipatory bail. Accordingly, petition is hereby rejected.
Sd/-
JUDGE CLK