Allowed

Shri.Mangesh Balakrishna Kekare v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC27 May 2019CRL.P/100718/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a criminal petition under Section 438 CrPC seeking anticipatory bail for accused No.3 in a case involving creation of a false GPA and execution of a fraudulent sale deed. The court imposed conditions regarding bond, surrender, and cooperation.

What did the court decide?

Released on Anticipatory Bail subject to conditions of bond, surrender, and cooperation with investigation.

Shri.Mangesh Balakrishna Kekare Vs the State of Karnataka — Cheque Dishonour | Karnataka HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶2

DATED THIS THE 27^TH DAY OF MAY 2019

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE B.A.PATIL

¶5

CRL.P. NO.100718 OF 2019

¶6

BETWEEN

¶7

SHRI.MANGESH BALAKRISHNA KEKARE AGE: 69 YEARS, OCC: PVT. WORK, R/O: H.NO.216, SUBHASH MARKET, HINDWADI, BELAGAVI. (BY SRI.VISHWANATH BADIGER, ADV.)

¶8

... PETITIONER

¶9

AND

¶10

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA PRESENTED BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, (KHADE BAZAR P.S.), HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH, AT: DHARWAD. (BY SRI.RAJA RAGHAVENDRA NAIK, HCGP)

¶11

... RESPONDENT

¶12

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 438 OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO ALLOW THIS PETITION AND ENLARGE THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.3 ON BAIL IN CRIME NO.07/2017 DATED 11.01.2017 REGISTERED BY KHADE BAZAR POLICE STATION, AGAINST PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.3 AND OTHER ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 468, 471 & 420 OF IPC.

¶13

: 2 :

¶14

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

¶15

ORDER

¶16

This petition is filed by the petitioner-accused

¶17

No.3 under Section 438 of CR.P.C. to release him on Anticipatory Bail in Crime No.07/2017 dated 11.01.2017 for the offences punishable under Sections 468, 471, & 420 of IPC.

¶18

I have heard the learned counsel for the

¶19

petitioner and learned HCGP for respondent-State.

¶20

The gist of the complaint is that he is the owner of R.S.No.234/9 measuring 32 guntas. It is further alleged that his elder brother Parushram fabricated General Power of Attorney dated 07.02.2018 stating that the said GPA got executed in his favour by complainant and his brother Kallappa. On the basis of the said GPA, he executed sale deed dated 04.03.2016 in favour of one Yashwant Kallappa Maruche. It is further alleged that the present petitioner-accused No.3

¶21

: 3 :

¶22

falsely identified the executants of GPA and on the basis of the same the case has been registered.

¶23

It is submission of the learned counsel for

¶24

the petitioner-accused No.3 that the petitioner is innocent, he has not committed any offences as alleged by the complainant and he has been falsely implicated in this case. The alleged offences are not exclusively punishable with death or imprisonment for life and the only allegation as against the petitioner-accused No.3 is that he has falsely identified the executants of GPA, except that no other serious allegations are made as against him. On these grounds he prays to allow the bail petition.

¶25

On the other hand, learned HCGP contents

¶26

that there is prima facie materials as against the petitioner for having committed the alleged offences. The petitioner is absconding from the date of complaint. He has wrongly identified the executants of the GPA and

¶27

: 4 :

¶28

on the basis of such documents they got executed the sale deed. Investigation is completed and charge sheet has been filed. At this stage, if the bail is granted to the petitioner-accused No.3, he may tamper with the prosecution witnesses, he may again abscond and he may hamper the trial of the case. Hence, he is not entitled for anticipatory bail and prays to dismiss the petition.

¶29

I have carefully and cautiously gone through

¶30

the records and arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner-accused No.3 and learned HCGP.

¶31

On close reading of the contents of the

¶32

complaint the allegations which has been made is that accused Nos.1 and 2 got created the GPA and got executed sale deed dated 04.03.2016 which has to be considered and appreciated only at the time of trail. It is further alleged that, petitioner-accused No.3 has falsely identified the executants of the GPA that is also a

¶33

: 5 :

¶34

matter which has to be considered at the time of trial.

¶35

The alleged offences are not punishable with death or imprisonment for life. No serious allegations made as against petitioner-accused No.3 under such circumstances, I feel if by imposing some stringent conditions he may be enlarged on bail.

¶36

In view of the discussions made above, I proceed to pass the following:

¶37

ORDER

¶38

The petition is allowed.

¶39

The petitioner-accused No.3 is ordered to be

¶40

released on Anticipatory Bail in the event of his arrest in Crime No.07/2017 of Khade Bazar Police Station for the offences punishable under Section 468, 471, 420 of IPC with the following conditions.

¶41

(i) The petitioner-accused No.3 shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- with two sureties for the

¶42

: 6 :

¶43

likesum to the satisfaction of the investigating officer.

¶44

(ii) He shall surrender before the investigating officer within 15 days from today.

¶45

(iii) He shall not tamper the prosecution witnesses directly or indirectly.

¶46

(iv) He shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Court without prior permission.

¶47

(v) He shall co-operate with the investigating officer. He shall appear before the investigating officer as and when he is requested.

¶48

(vi) He shall mark his attendance once in 15 days till the charge sheet is filed.

¶49

Sd/JUDGE

¶50

Hmb

Shri.Mangesh Balakrishna Kekare v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri.Mangesh Balakrishna Kekare v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Abdul Karim Rehman Qureshi Vs State of Karnataka

Mr.Sunil S/O Shankrayya Sadashivpeth Vs Shri.Harunsab S/O Dawalsab Dhamanekar

Shri.Channappa S/O Fakeerappa Rathod Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Nagaratna @ Paramma W/O Channappa Korishettar Vs State of Karnataka

M/S Indian Products Private Limited, Vs State of Karnataka

B.Imran S/O B. Jameel Sab Vs the State of Karnataka