Allowed

Smt. Tharakeshwari v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC3 Mar 2021CRL.P/1064/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka granted anticipatory bail to a government supervisor facing allegations of producing forged documents for her job. The court held that absence of an FIR does not preclude bail if arrest is apprehended following a potential police complaint.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on bail if arrested, required to execute a bond of Rs. 1,00,000/- with surety and abide by other judicial conditions for three months.

Smt. Tharakeshwari Vs the State of Karnataka — Anticipatory Bail | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 3^rd DAY OF MARCH 2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. NATARAJAN

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION No.1064 of 2021

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SMT.THARAKESHWARI, W/O. GANESH, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, SUPERVISOR, WOMEN AND CHILD DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT KOLAR, R/AT. GUMMAREDDYPURA, SRINIVASAPURA TALUK – 563 135 … PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI.TIGADI VEERANA GADIGEPPA, ADV.,)

¶10

AND:

¶11

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REP. BY STATION HOUSE OFFICER, VIDHANA SOUDHA, POLICE STATION, BENGALURU CITY, BENGALURU REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BENGALURU – 560 001

¶12

…RESPONDENT

¶13

(BY SRI.K.NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP)

¶14

¶15

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION-438 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO ALLOW THE PETITION BY GRANTING HER ANTICIPATORY BAIL DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT-POLICE AND / OR THE INVESTIGATION OFFICER TO RELEASE HER ON BAIL IN THE EVENT OF HER ARREST ON THE ALLEGATION THAT SHE PRODUCED FALSE, FORGED AND FABRICATED DOCUMENTS FOR SECURING APPOINTMENT AS SUPERVISOR IN THE DEPARTMENT OF CHILD AND WOMEN, GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA.

¶16

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

¶17

ORDER

¶18

Learned HCGP takes notice for the respondent – State.

¶19

This petition is filed by the petitioner under Section-438 of Cr.P.C., for grant of anticipatory bail seeking a direction from this Court to the Vidhana Soudha Police Station, Bengaluru to release the petitioner in the event of her arrest, in pursuance of any complaint to be filed by the Director, Department Of Child And Women, Government Of Karnataka.

¶20

The case of the petitioner is that she has been appointed as a Supervisor in the year 2003. She has put in

¶21

¶22

17 years service. Presently, she is working in Kolar District. On 17.10.2020. A show-cause notice has been issued by the Department Of Child And Women, Government Of Karnataka in initiating disciplinary action against the petitioner for having obtained the job by producing fake certificates. It is the further case that in case if she appears before the authority for enquiry, there is a further possibility of lodging a complaint and taking her to the Police Station and therefore prayed for granting of a anticipatory bail.

¶23

Per contra, the learned HCGP objected the petition. He submits that there is no case registered against the petitioner. Hence, there is no question of arrest and there is no ground made out for grant of anticipatory bail. The notice issued by department is only for the purpose of departmental enquiry and no where there is a possibility of arresting. Hence, prays for rejecting the petition.

¶24

¶25

On considering the arguments, it is seen that the learned counsel for the petitioner has filed a bail petition before the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Kolar in Crl. Misc. Petition No.546/2020 and the same came to be allowed. However, when a anticipatory bail petition came to be filed before the LXV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru in Crl.Misc.No.280/2021, the same came to be rejected on the ground that there is no question of arrest in the case.

¶26

But looking into the facts and circumstances of

¶27

the case, the notice issued by the department goes to show that the petitioner allegedly has produced fake marks card and degree certificate and obtained the job as a Supervisor in the Department Of Child And Women, Government Of Karnataka. A notice has been issued by the department head for initiating disciplinary action. But there cannot be said that there is no possibility for filing a complaint before the Police, when law provides both departmental enquiry and disciplinary action against the

¶28

¶29

petitioner, for having produced fake documents. Therefore, there is apprehension of arrest by the Police in case a complaint is filed by the Department. Therefore, considering the fact and circumstances of the case, there is sufficient reason made out by the learned counsel for the petitioner for apprehension of arrest in the hands of the Police for having committed non-bailable offence.

¶30

The objection raised by the learned HCGP is not sustainable that registering a FIR is sine-quo norm for grant of anticipatory bail. As it is very well settled principle of law that registering a FIR is not a sine-quo norm for grant of an anticipatory bail. Hence, I pass the following order:

¶31

ORDER

¶32

The Criminal Petition is allowed.

¶33

The respondent – Vidhana Soudha Police Station, are directed to release the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest for having committing any non-bailable offence on the complaint filed by the Department of Women and Child

¶34

¶35

Department or any other Government Department or appointing authority, shall be released subject to the following conditions:

¶36

(i) Petitioner shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) with a solvent surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer;

¶37

(ii) This anticipatory bail will exists only for a period of three months from the date of the order.

¶38

(iii) Petitioner shall not directly or indirectly tamper with any of the prosecution witnesses;

¶39

(iv) Petitioner shall cooperate with the Investigation Officer in the event a case is registered against her.

¶40

Sd/JUDGE

¶41

Smt. Tharakeshwari v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Tharakeshwari 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

S R Praveen Kumar Vs State of Karnataka

Vishruth N Raj Vs State

Rudresh Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. Shankar. Y. K. Vs the State of Karnataka

Raja Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Manjunatha K Vs State of Karnataka by