Allowed

Sajan Shahajan v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC15 Feb 2021CRL.P/100273/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka allowed a criminal petition for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for petitioners accused of forgery and cheating. Bail was granted subject to stringent conditions including execution of a bond, surrender within 15 days, and appearing before the investigating officer.

What did the court decide?

Criminal petition allowed; Respondent police directed to release petitioners on bail in event of arrest under specified conditions.

Sajan Shahajan Vs State of Karnataka — Cheating and Forgery | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶2

DATED THIS THE 15^th DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE K. NATARAJAN

¶5

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.100273/2021

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

1 . SAJAN @ SHAHAJAN S/O. ALLAHBAKSH NADAF AGE. 47 YEARS, OCC. PVT. SERVICE R/O. RAGHUNATH PETH ANGOL TQ AND DIST. BELAGAVI

¶8

2 . SADIQ S/O ALLAHBAKSH NADAF AGE. 40 YEARS, OCC. DRIVER, R/O. OLD GANDHI NAGAR, TQ AND DIST. BELAGAVI

¶9

.. PETITIONERS

¶10

(BY SRI. RAM P. GHORPADE, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY KHADAKALAT POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, DHARWAD-580011

¶13

.. RESPONDENT

¶14

(BY SMT. SEEMA SHIVA NAIK, HCGP)

¶15

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 438 OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENT POLICE TO ENLARGE THEM ON ANTICIPATORY BAIL WHO IS ACCUSED NO.1 AND ACCUSED NO.2, IN

¶16

¶17

THE EVENT OF THEIR ARREST IN CRIME NO.95/2018 OF KHADAKLAT POLICE STATION ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC COURT, NIPPANI, BELAGAVI, FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 465, 468, 471, 420 OF IPC.

¶18

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING/VIDEO CONFERENCING HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

O R D E R

¶20

This petition is filed by the petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, for granting anticipatory bail in Crime No.95/2018 registered by the Khadakalat Police Station, Nippani circle for the offence punishable under Sections 465, 468, 471 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘IPC’, for brevity).

¶21

The case of the prosecution is that the complainant namely Smt. Mumtazbegum who is said to be the sister of the petitioners, has filed a private complaint in PCR No.2/2018 before the learned JMFC, Nippani. The same was referred to the police and a case was registered by the police and issued the FIR. It is alleged by the complainant that petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 are said to have created a false gift deed in the name of Yasin, who is one of their brothers and is serving in Military, with an intention

¶22

¶23

to cheat the complainant and to knockout the property. After registering the case, the police were making hectic efforts to arrest the petitioners. Hence, they approached the learned Sessions Judge for anticipatory bail which came to be rejected. Hence, they are before this Court.

¶24

Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the petitioners are innocent of the alleged offence. They have been falsely implicated by the complainant. The complainant has already filed a civil suit which is pending before the Civil Court, Nippani, despite which, a false case has been registered even though the petitioners are her brothers and that Yasin, their brother, is the beneficiary of the gift deed whose name is not mentioned in the FIR or the complaint. They are ready to abide by any conditions. Hence, prayed for granting bail.

¶25

Per contra, learned Government Pleader for the respondent-State objected to the bail petition and contended that investigation is still pending and the petitioners are required for custodial interrogation and hence prayed for rejecting the bail petition.

¶26

¶27

Upon hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for

¶28

the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader and on perusal of the records, it goes to show that the allegation made against the petitioners is that they are said to have created a document and fabricated gift deed in the name of one of their brothers Yasin, to show that their deceased father has gifted the property in his name. A compliant came to be filed in the month of January 2018 and registered by the Police in the month of February 2018. The alleged incident is said to have taken place on 30.03.2017 about three years back. It is also submitted that a civil suit is also filed by the complainant against her brothers which is pending before the Civil Court, Nippani. The alleged offence are though nonbailable but not punishable with death or imprisonment for life. Investigation is still pending and charge sheet is not yet filed and the offence is triable by Magistrate.

¶29

Upon considering the facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, by imposing stringent conditions, if bail is granted to the petitioners, no prejudice would be caused to the prosecution case.

¶30

¶31

7. Accordingly, I pass the following order:

¶32

The Criminal Petition is allowed. The respondent-police are directed to release the petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 on bail in the event of their arrest in Crime No.95/2018 for the offence punishable under Sections 465, 468, 471 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, subject to the following conditions:

¶33

i. The petitioners shall execute a personal bond for a sum of `1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) each with one surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the trial Court.

¶34

ii. The petitioners shall surrender themselves before the Investigating Officer within fifteen days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶35

iii. The petitioners shall not tamper the prosecution witnesses directly or indirectly.

¶36

iv. The petitioners shall not indulge in similar offences.

¶37

v. The petitioners are deemed to be in custody for the purpose of any recovery under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act or for the purpose of any specific signature for getting the opinion from the Handwriting Expert.

¶38

¶39

vi. The petitioners shall mark their attendance before the Investigating Officer once in a week on every Monday between 10.00 am and 5.00 pm for a period of two months or till filing of the charge sheet whichever is earlier.

¶40

Sd/JUDGE

¶41

kmv

Sajan Shahajan v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sajan Shahajan 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

State of Karnataka Vs Harish S/O. Subray Hegde

Chandrappa Rayappa Itagi Vs the State by Marihal of Police

Mahesh Vs the State of Karnataka

Mr Thippeswamy Vs the State of Karnataka

Mallappa Vs the State of Karnataka

Shubham S/O Raju Bhatkande Vs State of Karnataka