Karnataka High Court
Shri. Basavaraj S/O. Rudrappa ... vs The State Of Karnataka on 4 August, 2021
Author: Rajendra Badamikar
Bench: Rajendra Badamikar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA BADAMIKAR
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.101379/2021
BETWEEN:
SHRI.BASAVARAJ S/O RUDRAPPA DUNDANATTI,
AGE: 34 YEARS, OCC: PRIVATE WORK,
R/O BEERANGADDI VILLAGE, TQ. GOKAK,
DIST: BELAGAVI-591301
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI.SHIVARAJ S.BALLOLLI, ADV.)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA.
THROUGH RURAL POLICE STATION, BALLARI,
REP.BY SATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH,
DHARWAD-580 001.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI.RAMESH B.CHIGARI, HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 438
OF CR.P.C. SEEKING ANTICIPATORY BAIL AND IN THE EVENT
OF HIS ARREST IN CONNECTION WITH CRIME NO.308/2020 OF
RURAL POLICE STATION, BALLARI FOR THE OFFENCES
PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 419, 420, 465, 468, 120-B R/W
SECTION 34 OF IPC.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
2
ORDER
The petitioner has filed this petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. seeking anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest in Crime No.308/2020 of Rural Police Station Ballari registered for the offences punishable under Sections 419, 420, 465, 468, 120-B r/w Section 34 of IPC.
2. The factual matrix leading to the case are that, accused No.1 Dhareppa has attended a SRPC(KSRP)/IRB test for the post of constables in the State and examination was conducted on 22.11.2020 in Basavarajeshwari P.U.College, Ballari having Center Code No.5. It is further alleged that in place of accused No.1, accused No.4 has attended the examination and accused Nos.2 to 4 conspired and demanded Rs.5,00,000/- from accused No.1 to see that he being successful in the examination and being selected. On the basis of the complaint and after verification of the signature taken during the course of examination and CCTV footages, it is revealed that accused No.1 did not attended the 3 examination and in his place, accused No.4 attended the examination. Accused Nos.1, 2 and 4 were apprehended and on the basis of their voluntary statement, it is found that the present petitioner was also part of the conspiracy and hence his name was implicated. Apprehending his arrest, the present petitioner has moved anticipatory bail before the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Ballari and the learned Sessions Judge by order dated 08.07.2021 rejected the bail petition. Hence, the petitioner has approached this court.
3. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned HCGP for the respondent- State. Perused the records.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is innocent and he has not committed any offence. He would also submit that except the alleged voluntary statement, there is no other material evidence and he his running a coaching class for job aspirants and he has been falsely implicated in this case. 4 He would also submit that he has been granted bail in other matters and he undertakes to abide by the terms and conditions to be imposed by this court. Hence, he would seek for admitting the petitioner on anticipatory bail.
5. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader has seriously objected the bail petition denying the contents there under. He contended that petitioner is the mastermind of this offence and he has conspired with the other accused and offered to get a job to accused No.1 by demanding Rs.5,00,000/- and Rs.50,000/- was to be paid as advance to accused No.4. He would submit that all the accused conspired and the present petitioner involved in similar offences throughout the State and he is running a racket in this regard. He would submit that considering the conduct of the present petitioner and he being a habitual offender, this is not a fit case wherein discretion could be exercised in his favour and sought for rejection of the bail petition.
5
6. Having heard the arguments and perusing the records, it is evident that the present petitioner is arrayed as accused No.3. The allegation of the prosecution discloses that complainant was appointed as in-charge for conducting examination of eligible candidates for Karnataka Special Reserve Police (KSRP) and Police Constable (IRB) (Men and Women) Posts-2020 at Basavarajeshwari P.U.College Centre. The complainant along with his supporting staff entrusted with the conduct of examination. During the examination, in the said College Centre Code No.5 at Room No.13 one Dharani was appointed as invigilator and 20 candidates were asked to write the examination in the said room. After completion of the examination, when answer scripts were secured, the complainant got information from Superintendent of Police that in the name of candidate Dhareppa Yalagudri, another person wrote the examination by impersonation. Thereafter, on verification, it was found that Registration No.3154175 was allotted to Dhareppa Yalagudri and his signature does not tally with the signature found on the 6 answer script. After verification of CCTV footages and the photograph on the application, it is found that third person has attended the examination in the name of accused No.1. In this regard, a complaint came to be lodged and accused Nos.1, 2 and 4 were apprehended and it is revealed that one Shivaling Patil is running coaching centre as Daarideepa Coaching Centre, which is subsequently renamed as Ekalavya Coaching Centre. The present petitioner is managing the said centre and accused No.2 was the faculty member teaching Mental ability subject and accused No.4 was teaching general knowledge and history subjects. The present petitioner conspired with accused Nos.2 and 4 and in place of accused No.1, accused No.4 has attended the examination. Hence, it is alleged that there is impersonation and present petitioner is part of the said conspiracy.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that name of the present petitioner was not found in the FIR. But it is to be noted here that the name of the present 7 petitioner was brought to the notice only after apprehension of the other accused after lodging FIR and interrogation of other accused. Further, the objections raised by the prosecution does establish that the present petitioner is also involved in Basavanagudi Police crime No.110/2020, Belagavi Town Udyambhag P.S.crime No.49/2020, Belagavi City Shapur P.S.crime No.77/2020, Bengaluru Town Kengeri P.S.crime No.368/2020 and Hubli-Dharwad Gokul P.S.crime No.61/2020 for similar offences of impersonation during the examination. This clearly establishes that the present petitioner appears to be a habitual offender and he is involved in number of similar cases. Under these circumstances, considering the conduct of the present petitioner and considering his involvement of committing similar offences, it is evident that he is running a racket. Though it is contended that he was enlarged on bail on other matters, it is specifically submitted by the learned HCGP that the conditions were imposed against him for marking attendance before the concerned police station, but he has not complied the said 8 condition and thereby he has violated the bail conditions granted in earlier matters also. Under these circumstances, it is evident that petitioner is not law abiding citizen and he is involved in number of similar cases. The matter is still at the stage of investigation and the custodial enquiry of the present petitioner is essential. Under these circumstances, question of granting anticipatory bail to the present petitioner does not arise at all. Hence, the petition is devoid of any merits needs to be rejected. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The criminal petition is rejected.
Sd/-
JUDGE MBS/-