Smt Gultaz @ Gulthaunnisa vs The State Of Karataka (Hosadurga Police ... on 18 June, 2018

[Cites 6, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Smt Gultaz @ Gulthaunnisa vs The State Of Karataka (Hosadurga Police ... on 18 June, 2018

Bench: John Michael Cunha

                           1



       IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT

                     BENGALURU

    DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF JUNE, 2018

                       BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA

         CRIMINAL PETITION NO.2920/2018


BETWEEN:

Smt Gultaz @ Gulthaunnisa
W/o Mahammed Salim
Aged about 55 years
Occ: House Wife
R/at Kobbaripet, Hosadurga
Hosadurga Taluk
Chitradurga District.
                                   ... PETITIONER
(By Sri N.M.Handral, Advocate)


AND:

The State of Karnataka
(Hosadurga Police Station)
Rep. by State Public Prosecutor
High Court Building
Bengaluru-560 001.
                                  ...RESPONDENT
(By Sri S.Vishwa Murthy, HCGP)
                             2



      This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 438
Coder of Criminal Procedure praying to enlarge the
petitioner on bail in the event of her arrest in Crime
No.115/2018 of Hosadurga Police Station, Chitradurga
District for the offence P/U/S 420, 471, 474 of Indian
Penal Code.

      This Petition coming on for Orders this day, the
court made the following:


                          ORDER

This petition is filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.115/2018 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 471, 474 of IPC.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader.

3. Learned High Court Government Pleader has not filed any statement of objections, but has orally opposed the petition.

4. A First Information Report came to be registered against the petitioner based on the complaint 3 lodged by the authorized signatory of Reliance General Insurance Company Limited. In the complaint, it is alleged that the petitioner herein has created a fake insurance policy in respect of vehicle bearing no.KA- 14/A-3434 and the same has been produced before the District Judge and MACT at Chitradugra in MVC No.932/2015.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the proceedings before the MACT were pending since 2015 and the complainant-Insurance Company participated in the said proceedings. The original insurance policy was marked in evidence. When the matter was posted for judgment, the complaint came to be lodged alleging forgery and falsification of the document.

6. The learned counsel submits that the document produced before this Court is a genuine document. The petitioner is not instrumental in committing the alleged 4 forgery. The alleged document is produced before the MACT and therefore, there cannot be any apprehension of the petitioner tampering with the said evidence and hence, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not necessary as the petitioner is ready and willing to co- operate in the investigation.

7. The learned High Court Government Pleader however opposes the submission and submits that having regard to the seriousness of the charge levelled against the petitioner, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary to ascertain the manner in which the forgery has been committed and the document has been got up by the petitioner.

8. On going through the complaint, it is seen that the claim proceedings were pending before the Claims Tribunal since 2015. The allegations made in the complaint indicate that the insurance policy was produced before the Claims Tribunal. The complainant 5 has come up with the allegations of forgery only in the year 2018. It is not forthcoming as to whether any premium has been paid in respect of the said insurance cover. It is not the case of the prosecution that the petitioner has been running the bus without any valid cover in violation of the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

Under the said circumstances, even though serious allegations are made against the petitioner, yet the very document being in the custody of the Court, there cannot be any apprehension of the petitioner tampering with the said evidence. Therefore, taking into consideration all these facts and circumstances of the case, in my view, no prejudice would be caused to the investigating agency if the petitioner is admitted to bail.

4. Hence, the following order:-

Criminal Petition is allowed.

The petitioner is directed to appear before the Investigating Officer within 15 days from the date of this order and on his appearance, the Investigating Officer shall interrogate the petitioner and shall enlarge him on bail on the same day subject to the following conditions:-

a. The petitioner shall furnish a bond in a sum of Rs.1.00 lakh (Rupees One lakh only) with one surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer;




       b.      The petitioner shall appear before the

               Investigating    Officer   as   and   when

               required;



       c.      The petitioner shall co-operate in the

               investigation;
                           7

d. The petitioner shall not threaten or allure the prosecution witnesses; and e. The petitioner shall mark his attendance in Hosadurga Police Station, Chitradurga District on the 15th of every month until submission of the final report.

Sd/ JUDGE nv

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court