Karnataka High Court
Sri Ganesh Babu M V vs State Of Karnataka By on 6 June, 2022
Author: H.P. Sandesh
Bench: H.P. Sandesh
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF JUNE, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.4645/2022
BETWEEN:
SRI GANESH BABU M.V.,
S/O LATE N VENKATESH
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
R/AT No:645, 1ST CROSS, KUMBARAGERI
CHAMARAJA MOHALLA
MYSURU - 570 024. ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI KUMARA K.G, ADVOCATE)
AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY ASHOKAPURAM POLICE STATION
MYSURU - 570 008
REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT BUILDING
BENGALURU - 560 001. ... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI MAHESH SHETTY, HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 438
OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN
THE EVENT OF HIS ARREST IN CR.NO.3/2021 OF ASHOKPURAM
P.S., MYSURU CITY FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/Ss.409, 417, 419,
420, 465, 467, 468, 471 R/W. 34 OF IPC, WHICH IS PENDING
ON THE FILE OF THE HON'BLE 1ST ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE
(SR.DN) AND CJM COURT JLB ROAD, MYSURU CITY.
2
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This petition is filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C., praying to enlarge the petitioner/accused No.25 on bail in the event of his arrest in respect of Crime No.3/2021 registered by Ashokpuram Police Station, Mysuru City, for the offences punishable under Sections 409, 417, 419, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 read with 34 of IPC.
2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent/ State.
3. The factual matrix of the case of the prosecution is that in order to knock off the property belongs to the owner of the property, other accused persons and this petitioner were indulged in creation of documents by forgery, impersonation, fabrication of documents and created 67 registered sale agreements and there were six sale deeds. Based on the complaint, the police have registered a case. 3
4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that in the complaint no allegation was made against this petitioner. Only accused Nos.22 and 23 made an allegation that this petitioner only brought the fictitious persons for registration of the documents and no allegation by accused No.24. There is an apprehension of arrest in view of accused Nos.22 and 23 made the statement before the police. Hence, this petitioner may be enlarged on bail.
5. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the State would submit that this petitioner is the beneficiary of the sale transaction and there were 67 registered sale agreements and six registered sale deeds in respect of the property belongs to the original complainant and the matter requires to be probed and a serious allegation of impersonation, forgery and fabrication of documents is alleged against the petitioner herein. Hence, he is not entitled for bail.
6. Having heard the respective counsel and on perusal of the material available on record and also the submission of learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the State 4 that through the fictitious persons, 67 sale agreements are created and six sale deeds were registered. There is an allegation of impersonation. The specific allegation against this petitioner is that, this petitioner only brought the fictitious persons to register the documents. Apart from that, he is the beneficiary of the said alleged document of fabrication and registration of the documents. When an attempt is made with an intention to knock off the property, it is not a fit case to exercise the discretion under Section 438 of Cr.P.C., to enlarge the petitioner on bail.
7. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following:
ORDER The bail petition is rejected.
Sd/-
JUDGE cp*