Smt Jayamma vs State Of Karnataka on 7 November, 2022

[Cites 11, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Smt Jayamma vs State Of Karnataka on 7 November, 2022

Bench: Rajendra Badamikar

                         1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

   DATED THIS THE 07th DAY OF NOVEMBER 2022

                     BEFORE

  THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJENDRA BADAMIKAR

        CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 9657 OF 2022

BETWEEN:

SMT. JAYAMMA
W/O KADAPPA
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS
R/AT, 293,
BHYRAVESHWARNAGARA
HANUMANTHARAYANAPALYA
VISHWANEEDAM POST,
BENGALURU-560 091.
                                      ... PETITIONER

(BY SRI. B.N.SHIVAKUMAR., ADVOCATE) (PH)

AND:

STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY BYADARAHALLI P.S.
REPRESENTED BY
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BENGALURU-01.
                                     ... RESPONDENT
(BY SMT. RASHMI JADHAV, HCGP) (PH)

     THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION
438 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER
ON THE BAIL IN THE EVENT OF HIS ARREST IN
CR.NO.323/2022 OF BYADARAHALLI P.S. BENGALURU
CITY FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS
427,406,420,447,448,465,468,471 R/W SECTION 34 OF
                                2

IPC PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE CJM AT BENGALURU
AND ETC.

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

                            ORDER

This petition is filed by the petitioner under Section 438 of Cr.P.C seeking anticipatory bail in the event of her arrest in Crime No.323/2022 of Byadarahalli Police Station, Bengaluru, registered for the offences punishable under Sections, 427, 406, 420, 447, 448, 465, 468, 471 r/w Section 34 of the IPC.

2. Heard the learned counsel for petitioner and learned HCGP for respondent-State. Perused the records.

3. The brief factual matrix leading to the case are that one Smt. Ankamma i.e., accused No.1 was the owner of site No.4 measuring 60 x 40 feet, situated in Sy No.39 of Andralli Village, Yashwanthpura, Hobli, and on 08.02.1993 the complainant has purchased the said site from Smt. Ankamma under a registered sale deed for a valuable consideration. It is also alleged that thereafter, he 3 has constructed a sheet roofed structure in the said property.

4. It is further alleged that accused No.3 Manjunath created a fake GPA dated 19.04.1995 said to have been executed by Ankamma in favour of present petitioner/ Accused No.2, pertaining to the disputed property by changing the boundaries and the property was sold in the name of accused No.3 in the year 2017 and later on in the year 2020, accused No.3 again sold it in favour of accused No.4. The complainant when visited to his site on 02.07.2022 evening at 5.00 p.m, he found that some construction was undergoing there by demolishing his sheet roofed house and on enquiry, he got information of fraud of all these aspects and as such, he lodged a complaint.

5. Apprehending her arrest, the petitioner has approached the learned Sessions Judge and learned Sessions Judge has rejected her bail petition. Hence the petitioner is before this Court.

6. Having heard the arguments and perusing the records, the allegations disclose that the complainant has purchased the site in the year 1993 and put up a sheet roofed structure. However, further allegations disclose that in the year 1995, accused No.1 has executed a GPA in favour of accused No.2 and accused No.2 sold on behalf of accused No.1 the said property in favour of accused No.3 in the year 2017 and accused No.3 in turn, sold it in the year 2020 to accused No.4.. It is further alleged that accused No.1 has also cheated the complainant by executing a GPA but the other allegations disclose that GPA was fabricated by accused No.3 in favour of accused No.2.

7. The entire matter is based on documentary evidence itself and at this juncture, no other material evidence is placed by the prosecution to show that the present petitioner has participated in getting the GPA forged in her name. The entire case is based on the alleged confessional statement said to have been given by one Manjunath. The present petitioner is a women and 5 falls under exemption. The offences alleged are not punishable with death or life imprisonment. Further, the entire case rests on the documentary evidence itself.

8. Under these circumstances, I do not find any impediment for admitting the petitioner on anticipatory bail. The other apprehensions raised by the learned HCGP can be meted out by imposing certain conditions. Hence, petition needs to be allowed and accordingly, I proceed to pass following:-

ORDER The petition is allowed.

The petitioner is ordered to be enlarged on bail in the event of her arrest in Crime No.323/2022 of Byadarahalli Police Station, registered for the offence punishable under Sections 427,406,420,447,448,465,468,471 r/w 34 of IPC on executing a personal bond in a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only) with two sureties for the like-sum to the satisfaction of the concerned I.O/SHO, subject to following conditions:-

i) The petitioner shall not tamper with the prosecution witnesses directly or indirectly;

ii) The petitioner shall not indulge in any similar offences;

iii) The petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Court without prior permission of the Trial Court;

iv) The petitioner shall appear before the Court, on all the dates of hearing, unless they were exempted by a specific order.

(v) Petitioner shall surrender before the concerned Investigating Officer within fifteen days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order and in the event of surrender, Investigating Officer/SHO shall release her on bail as directed.

Sd/-

JUDGE VS

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court