Ganesh Bhat vs The State Of Karnataka on 20 April, 2017

[Cites 6, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Ganesh Bhat vs The State Of Karnataka on 20 April, 2017

Bench: John Michael Cunha

                          -1-




IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

       DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF APRIL 2017

                       BEFORE

 THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA


           CRIMINAL PETITION NO.1555/2017

BETWEEN:

GANESH BHAT,
S/O LATE N. NARAYANA BHAT,
AGE ABOUT 59 YEARS,
R/AT FLAT NO.403,
SARFAIR APARTMENT,
BEJAI CHURCH ROAD,
BEJAI, MANGALORE,
PIN: 575004.
                                          ...PETITIONER

(BY SRI. RAHUL RAI K., ADVOCATE
  FOR SRI. ARUNA SHYAM M., ADVOCATE)

AND:

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH MANGALORE SOUT
POLICE STATION,
REPRESENTED BY ITS
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT BUILDINGS,
BANGALORE 560001.
                                        ... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. B. VISWESWARAIAH, HCGP)


      THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 438
CR.P.C PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN
THE EVENT OF HIS ARREST IN CRIME NO.63/2009 OF
                              -2-



MANGALORE SOUTH POLICE STATION, D.K., WHICH IS
REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 408,465,468,471,420
R/W 34 OF IPC & ETC.,

      THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS COMING ON FOR ORDERS
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

                         ORDER

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned HCGP for the State.

2. Learned HCGP has not filed any statement of objections but has orally opposed the grant of bail to the petitioner.

3. The charges leveled against the petitioner are under Sections 408, 465, 468, 471, 420 r/w 34 of IPC. The law was set in by motion by the complainant alleging forgery of saguvali chit in relation to certain Government properties. In the FIR, no allegations whatsoever were made against the present petitioner with regard to his involvement in the alleged offences. However, at the time of submitting the charge sheet, the present petitioner is shown as accused No.11 and the -3- material allegations made against the petitioner are that, being the employee of the Tahsildar office, Mangaluru Taluk, he assisted the offences by failing to scrutinize the documents.

4. Having regard to the nature of accusation made against the Petitioner, he would have been admitted to anticipatory bail even at the crime stage. Therefore, at this juncture, the petitioner is entitled for the same relief.

5. Hence, the following order:-

(i) Criminal petition is allowed. The petitioner is directed to appear before the jurisdictional Magistrate within 15 days from the date of this order and on his appearance, the learned Magistrate shall enlarge him on bail on obtaining a bond for a sum of Rs.1.00 lakh (Rupees One lakh only) with two sureties for the like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate;

-4-

(ii) The petitioner shall regularly appear before the Court as and when required; and

(iii) The petitioner shall not threaten or allure the prosecution witnesses.

SD/-

JUDGE BS

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court