Dismissed

Ramu v. State by Bengaluru Police Station

Karnataka HC22 Jul 2021CRL.P/3171/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka dismissed a petition for anticipatory bail filed by an accused alleged to have impersonated a complainant and created false sale deeds to defraud a property owner. The court held the petitioner, described as a habitual offender who had been absconding since 2019, required for custodial interrogation and not entitled to bail.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail petition dismissed. The petitioner is not entitled to bail.

Ramu Vs State by Bengaluru Police Station — Cheating and Forgery | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 22^ND DAY OF JULY, 2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. NATARAJAN

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION No.3171/2021

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

RAMU, S/O PERIANNAN, 65 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.275, BABU SAB PALYA, ACCUSED NO.1, BENGALURU - 560 043.

¶9

..PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI.SHAHTAJ, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

STATE BY BENGALURU POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BANGALORE - 560 001.

¶13

..RESPONDENT

¶14

(BY SRI.K.NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP)

¶15

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 438 OF CR.P.C. BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS HONBLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN THE EVENT OF HIS ARREST IN CR.NO.34/2019 OF BAGALUR P.S., BENGALURU CITY FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 120B, 403, 463, 464, 465, 470, 471, 420, 419, 477A R/W 34 OF IPC.

¶16

¶17

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

¶18

O R D E R

¶19

This petition is filed by petitioner/accused No.1 under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. for granting anticipatory bail in Crime No.34/2019 registered by Bagalur Police, Bangalore for the offences punishable under Sections 120B, 403, 463, 464, 465, 470, 471, 420, 419, 477A read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code.

¶20

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State.

¶21

The case of the prosecution is that one Habibur Rahman Mundol filed a compliant to Bagalur police on 13.3.2019 alleging that he is the permanent resident of Kerala and has been working at Dubai and

¶22

he came to Bangalore and purchased the property in Sy.No.16 measuring 8.5 guntas situated at Kannur

¶23

¶24

Village, Bidarahalli Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk (now Bangalore East Taluk) and later came to know that the petitioner/accused No.1 obtained sale deed from accused No.2 and by fabricating documents, accused No.2 himself impersonated as this petitioner by executing Agreement of Sale and General Power of Attorney on 3.11.2017 in the name of the complainant. A cash of Rs.45 lakhs was paid as sale consideration amount to his vendor. The sale deed was executed by impersonation, thereby the petitioner/accused No.1 committed offence. After registering the case, police are making hectic efforts to arrest the petitioner since he is absconding. He approached the Sessions Court for grant of bail which came to be rejected. Hence, he is before this Court.

¶25

Learned counsel for the petitioner contended

¶26

that the petitioner is innocent of the alleged offences, the complainant has already filed a civil suit for declaration before the Civil Court in O.S.No.378/2018

¶27

¶28

which is pending. The petitioner appeared as a defendant and is yet to file Written Statement. The investigation is still pending and he is ready to abide by any conditions imposed by this Hon’ble Court. Hence, prayed for grant of anticipatory bail.

¶29

Per contra, the learned HCGP seriously objected the bail petition mainly on the ground that the petitioner is habitual offender. He is also involved in two more cases of the same police station in Crime Nos.44/2019 and 42/2020 which reveals that he is habitual offender in creating false documents and selling the property of the innocent people and in respect of the same, learned HCGP has produced the case dairy records obtained from the police. Hence, prayed for dismissal of bail petition.

¶30

The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner was granted bail in another case, a false case has been created against the

¶31

¶32

petitioner, he is ready to abide by any conditions imposed by this Hon’ble Court. He is aged about 72 years and is suffering from disease.

¶33

Upon hearing the arguments of learned

¶34

counsel for the petitioner and the learned HCGP and on perusal of the records, it shows that of course the age of the petitioner is 65 years and no document is produced to show that he is having serious ailments for considering the bail on medical grounds. The allegation against this petitioner is that accused Nos.1 and 2 have colluded together to create false General Power of Attorney in the name of the complainant and impersonated the complainant and sold the property to accused No.3 and petitioner was also involved in two more cases which reveals that he is habitual offender creating false documents and selling the property to the innocent land owners in the village. The investigation is still pending. Looking to the allegations, the petitioner is required for custodial

¶35

¶36

interrogation for the purpose of recovery of the documents and to verity whether the petitioner is also involved in any other case as per the submission of the learned HCGP, the petitioner is absconding from the year 2019 from the date of registration of the case. Therefore, I am of the view that the petitioner is required for custodial interrogation and serious allegation is made against him. Therefore, he is not entitled for anticipatory bail. Hence, I pass the following:

¶37

ORDER

¶38

The criminal petition is dismissed .

¶39

Sd/JUDGE

¶40

cbc

Ramu v. State by Bengaluru Police Station

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramu v. State by Bengaluru Police Station

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

Mukesh Kumar Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Mohammed Faraz Vs State of Karnataka

Mani @ Manikanta Vs the State of Karnataka

Santhosh @ Appu Vs the State of Karnataka by

The State - through the Circle Vs Mr. Firoz Sheik

Srinivasa Vs State of Karnataka