Allowed

Dhirajtinekar S/O Vitthal Tinekar v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC8 Jul 2020CRL.P/100602/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Karnataka High Court allowed a criminal petition for bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for two accused accused of fabricating documents and obstructing police. The court imposed stringent conditions, including a personal bond and prohibition on tampering with witnesses.

What did the court decide?

Bail allowed subject to personal bond of Rs. 1,00,000/- each, prohibition on tampering with witnesses, and prior permission for leaving jurisdiction.

Dhirajtinekar S/O Vitthal Tinekar Vs State of Karnataka — Cheating and Forgery | Karnataka HC (2020)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶3

DATED THIS THE 8^{T H} DAY OF JULY, 2020

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK G NIJAGANNAVAR

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.100602/2020

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

DHIRAJ TINEKAR S/O. VITTHAL TINEKAR AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESSMAN, R/O: RAVINDRA NAGAR, SIRSI ROAD, YALLAPUR, (UTTARA KANNADA)-581359.

¶9

PRAKASH KATTIMANI S/O. BASAVARAJ KATTIMANI AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC: PHOTO STUDIO, R/O: UDYAMNAGAR, YALLAPUR (UTTARA KANNADA)-581359.

¶10

... PETITIONERS

¶11

(BY SRI GOURISHANKAR H MOT, ADVOCATE.)

¶12

AND:

¶13

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY YALLAPUR POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, DHARWAD.

¶14

... RESPONDENT

¶15

(BY SRI PRAVEEN K. UPPAR, HCGP.)

¶16

¶17

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE, PRAYING TO ENLARGE THEM ON BAIL WHO ARE ACCUSED NOS.1 AND 2 IN YALLAPUR P.S.CRIME NO.77/2020 REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 269, 270, 353, 419, 465, 468, 471 READ WITH SECTION 34 OF IPC AND UNDER SECTIONS 66, 66(D) OF I.T. ACT, ETC.,.

¶18

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

¶19

ORDER

¶20

This petition is filed by accused Nos.1 and 2, under section 439 Cr.P.C., seeking bail in Crime No.77/2020 of Yallapur P.S., registered for the offences punishable under sections 269, 270, 353, 419, 465, 468, 471 read with section 34 of IPC and under sections 66, 66(D) of I.T. Act.

¶21

2. The prosecution case is that on the

¶22

sou-moto report of the PSI, Yellapur P.S., the criminal case was registered in Crime No.77/2020 for the offences punishable under sections 269, 270, 353, 419, 465, 468, 471 read with section 34 of IPC and under sections 66, 66(D) of I.T. Act. The allegations are that the petitioners have misused

¶23

¶24

the passes issued by the Tahasildar by concocting false documents, thereby they have committed the offences punishable under sections 269, 270, 353, 419, 465, 468, 471 read with section 34 of IPC and under sections 66, 66(D) of I.T. Act.

¶25

On registering the case, the police have taken up the investigation. The accused are arrested on 24.4.2020. Since then they are in judicial custody. The bail petition filed before the Sessions Court is rejected.

¶26

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned HCGP for the respondent State. Perused the prosecution

¶27

records.

¶28

The allegations are that the petitioners have caused obstruction to the police officials in discharging the public duty and they have also fabricated false records, namely, the passes in the name of Tahasildar and misused them. The

¶29

¶30

learned Sessions Judge has opined that in the event of granting bail to the petitioners, they are likely to tamper or influence the prosecution witnesses.

¶31

As could be seen from the complaint averments, the accused persons have managed to create some fake records, such as passes of Tahasildar, which are used for essential service. The accused are in judicial custody for more than two months. At this stage no grounds have been made out to show that their presence is required for custodial interrogation. The only objection of the prosecution is that in the event of granting bail, the petitioners are likely to cause threat or influence the prosecution witnesses. The said objection may be set right by imposing stringent conditions.

¶32

Considering the facts and

¶33

circumstances of the case and submission of the

¶34

¶35

counsel, this Court is of the view there are valid grounds for granting bail, subject to certain terms and conditions. Hence, I proceed to pass the following:

¶36

ORDER

¶37

The petition filed under section 439 of Cr.P.C., is allowed.

¶38

Consequently, the petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 shall be released on bail in Crime No.77/2020 of Yallapur P.S., subject to the following conditions.

¶39

i) The petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2

¶40

shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (one lakh rupees only) each with two sureties for the like sum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court.

¶41

ii) The petitioners shall not indulge in

¶42

tampering the prosecution witnesses.

¶43

¶44

iii) The petitioners shall not leave the jurisdiction of the trial Court without prior

¶45

permission, till the disposal of the case.

¶46

If the petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2

¶47

violate any of the conditions, the bail order automatically stands cancelled.

¶48

Sd/JUDGE

¶49

Mrk/-

Dhirajtinekar S/O Vitthal Tinekar v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dhirajtinekar S/O Vitthal Tinekar v. 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

Sri.Vinayak Prabhakar Tarlekar Vs State of Karnataka

Shri.Hanamant Appasab Shirahatti Vs the State of Karnataka

Shri.Hanamant S/O Gurling Teli Vs the State of Karnataka

Ramjeej Ahmed S/O Sayyed Ahmed Vs the State of Karnataka

Anusuya D/O Annappa Vs the State of Karnataka

Ningaraj S/O Shivanand Harlapur Vs the State of Karnataka