The court dismissed three criminal petitions for bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. filed by officials and an agent accused of conspiring to create fake allotment letters, cheat the Bangalore Development Authority, and loot public property.
Criminal petitions for bail dismissed; liberty granted to approach the trial court.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF MARCH, 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. NATARAJAN
CRIMINAL PETITION No.54 OF 2021 CONNECTED WITH
CRIMINAL PETITION No.363 OF 2021 CRIMINAL PETITION No.459 OF 2021
IN CRIMINAL PETITION NO.54/2021:
BETWEEN:
Mr. Inderkumar M Aged about 36 years Son of R.M. Kannan R/a No.34, Inderillam, I Floor Pioneer Defence Housing Colony Adarsh Nagar, R.T.Nagar Post Bangalore – 560 032.
(Now in Judicial Custody Central Prison, Bangalore) …Petitioner (By Sri. Hashmath Pasha, Sr. Counsel for Sri. Nasir Ali - Advocate)
AND:
State of Karnataka By Seshadripuram Police Bangalore City – 560001
2
Rep. by learned State Public Prosecutor High Court of Karnataka Bangalore.
...Respondent
(By Sri. V.M. Sheelavanth, SPP-I a/w Smt. Rashmi Jadhav – HCGP)
This Criminal petition is filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. praying to enlarge him on bail in Crime No.89/2020 of Seshadripuram Police Station, Bangalore City, which is pending on the file of the IV-ACMM, Bangalore for offences punishable under Sections 406, 409, 420, 470, 467, 471, 473, 472, 474, 475, 476 of IPC on such terms and conditions.
IN CRIMINAL PETITION NO.363/2021: BETWEEN:
Mr. Shivegowda S/o Late Nanja Lingegowda Aged about 45 years Deputy Secretary – 3 BDA, Bengaluru – 560 001. …Petitioner (By Sri. Kiran S. Javali – Advocate for Sri. Chandrashekara K - Advocate)
AND:
State of Karnataka By Seshadripuram Police Station Rep. by SPP High Court Building Bangalore-560 001.
...Respondent
(By Sri. V.M. Sheelavanth, SPP-I a/w Smt. Rashmi Jadhav – HCGP)
3
This Criminal petition is filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Crime No.89/2020 of Seshadripuram Police Station, Bangalore on the file of IV ACMM, Bengaluru for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 409, 467, 471, 472, 474, 475, 476 and 420 of IPC.
IN CRIMINAL PETITION NO.459/2021:
BETWEEN:
Smt. Kamalamma M.V W/o Late Mr. C. Prasad Aged about 59 years R/at No.552, 1st Floor 53rd Cross, 3rd Block Rajajinagar Bangalore - 560001.
…Petitioner (By Sri. Sanjay J. Chouta, Sr. Counsel for Sri. Ismail Muneeb Musba - Advocate)
AND:
State of Karnataka Rep. by Seshadripuram Police Rep. by Public Prosecutor High Court Building High Court of Karnataka Bangalore-560001.
...Respondent
(By Sri. V.M. Sheelavanth, SPP-I a/w Smt. Rashmi Jadhav – HCGP)
This Criminal petition is filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Crime No.89/2020 of Seshadripuram Police Station, Bangalore for
4
the offences punishable under Sections 406, 409, 420, 470, 467, 471, 473, 472, 474, 475, 476 of IPC.
These Criminal petitions coming on for further Hearing , this day, the Court made the following:
O R D E R
Crl.P.No.54/2021 is filed by Accused No.2, Crl.P.No.363/2021 is filed by Accused No.1 and Crl.P.No.459/2021 is filed by Accused No.3 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. for granting bail in Crime No.89/2020 registered by Seshadripuram Police Station for the offence punishable under Sections 406, 409, 467, 470, 471, 472, 473, 474, 475, 476 and 420 of IPC.
5
and HRBR Layouts as if the BDA is allotting those sites and collecting lakhs of rupees and therefore, requested to take action.
6
half of the punishment that is 3 ½ years; the petitioner is in custody for almost more than 3 ½ months; the investigation is already completed; the police have already recovered the documents and also have took the accused to police custody and later produced before the Court; this petitioner is no more required for the purpose of investigation; the offences as alleged has not been committed and it was only under preparation and it cannot be said that the accused has cheated either the BDA or public and have gained themselves in private; merely preparing some documents or allotment letters and keeping them in the office do not constitute any of the offences under the provision of the IPC as stated by the prosecution; this petitioner is a film producer and a real estate agent and he is ready to abide by any condition to be imposed by this Court and he is a permanent resident of Bengaluru City. On these grounds, learned Senior Counsel prayed for granting bail to petitioner – Accused No.2.
7
8
is not the custodian of the documents and has not forged any documents as stated in the complaint; she does not have any independent power to issue any certificate, allotment letters etc; she is aged about 59 years and a woman and widow and she is ready to abide by any conditions to be imposed by this Court. Hence, prayed for granting of bail.
9
completed and charge sheet has been filed and their presence is not required for the purpose of investigation.
10
investigated by the Investigating Officer and filed the charge sheet. There is prima-facie material placed on record to show that Accused Nos.1 to 3 colluded together, created fake documents, allotment letters in order to sell the BDA properties. As per the Town Planning Authority, the sites were not at all in the map but they have created the false sites and tried to allot the same to the fake beneficiaries. Though the investigation is completed, but further investigation is still under progress. The accused persons have committed heinous offence and they should not be released on bail. Accepting future wrongful gain and keeping the allotment letters itself constitute the offences under Sections 465, 468, 471 of IPC. The documents were also seized from the office of Accused No.2 which reveals that Accused Nos.1 and 3 colluded with Accused No.2 for knocking over the properties of BDA. Though the other accused persons have been granted bail, but the allegations against them were not serious as compared to these petitioners. These petitioners are actually involved in creation of documents in the name of BDA for looting the
11
properties of BDA. Hence, he prayed for dismissal of the petitions.
i) Dinesh Dalmia vs. CBI (2007) 8 SCC 770
ii) Rakesh Kumar Paul vs. State of Assam (2017) 15 SCC 67
12
counsel for Accused No.1 as well as learned SPP and on perusal of records, it goes to shows that in W.P.No.8001/1992 and W.P.No.3337/1992 there was a direction by this Court to the BDA to allot sites to the slum dwellers who were evicted from the property of the State. As per the directions, the BDA said to have allotted 234 sites and later 180 sites to the beneficiaries and yet to allot 123 sites. The allegation against the petitioners goes to show that Accused No.3 – Lakshmana is said to be Secretary of Dalit Kalyan Kendra Karnataka Orphanage Development Association said to have been given list of 123 beneficiaries for allotment of BDA sites. It is alleged that Accused No.2 who is said to be the real estate agent in collusion with Accused Nos.1 and 3 and other accused persons had created fake allotment letters in the name of BDA and allotted some sites by mentioning the names of some fake beneficiaries. After receipt of information and after making preliminary enquiry, the complaint came to be filed before the police. The police raided the office of Accused No.2 at Cunningham Road and seized 40 fake
13
allotment letters and 55 copies of allotments letters under the panchanama. The said documents also reveals that Accused No.1 who is the Deputy Secretary working under BDA has affixed his signature as good as duly approved by the BDA in the meeting and it is ready for issuing the allotment letters to the beneficiaries which were mentioned in the allotment letters. It is also reveals from the records that Accused No.3 is the Supervisor working in the BDA who is the custodian of these blank allotment letters and other documents said to have been supplied to Accused No.2 by receiving bribe. Based upon the blank allotment letters, the accused No.2 used to fill all the names and addresses of the beneficiaries showing the dimension of sites and survey number, survey of land in which sites were carved out and it was mentioned at serial No.13 that the allotment letter was issued based upon the meeting held in BDA on 26.02.2019. Though it is argued by learned counsel appearing for Accused No.1 that he had taken charge as Deputy Secretary only in the month of June, 2020 during the Corona period, he has not signed any document, but the
14
original allotment letters produced before the Court reveals the signature of Accused No.1, Deputy Secretary working under the BDA and he has signed the document by using the seal of the BDA for issuing fake allotment certificate. The site numbers and the sketch prepared by so called engineers were also fake documents created in collusion with accused No.2. Though 40 allotment letters were prepared but not yet despatched to any of the beneficiaries. However 55 copies of allotment letters shows that they have already dispatched some of the letters to the beneficiaries.
15
Commissioner again has to place before the committee meeting and later it has to be approved and thereafter, the sites have to be allotted to the beneficiaries. By looking to these documents, the list of beneficiaries are within the custody of BDA, but it may not be a ground for accused No.2 for issuing allotment certificate to all those beneficiaries. Accused No.2 is the kingpin in creation of documents for allotment of sites to the fake beneficiaries, thereby they tried to knockout the Government property for the purpose of their personal gains.
16
itself is not a ground to show that the offence has not been committed as rightly said by learned SPP, which is nothing but diffusing the bomb before it blasts and saying that it has not caused any damage to anybody and no offence has been committed.
17
submitted the charge-sheet only with a view to curtail the right of the accused would essentially be a question of fact.” The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rakesh Kumar Paul vs. State of Assam reported in (2017) 15 SCC 67 has held that if the charge sheet is not filed within 90 days under Section 167(2) of Cr.P.C, then the High Court can grant bail.
18
Cr.P.C., the petitioners are entitled for default bail, cannot be acceptable. By looking into the entire material on record, I am of the view, that the petitioners are not entitled for granting of bail. Accordingly, the criminal petitions are dismissed.
However, liberty is granted to the petitioners to approach the trial Court in view of filing of the charge sheet. Any observations made by this Court shall not influence the trial Court while considering the bail applications on merits.
Sd/JUDGE
DKB/-
2 issues framed by the court
Whether bail should be granted to accused persons facing allegations of creating fake allotment letters and cheating the BDA.
Whether the filing of a charge sheet after the statutory period attracts default bail under Section 167(2) of Cr.P.C.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Dinesh Dalmia vs. CBIReferred¶78
Dinesh Dalmia vs. CBI (2007) 8 SCC 770 · Who else cites this
Rakesh Kumar Paul vs. State of AssamReferred¶78
Rakesh Kumar Paul vs. State of Assam (2017) 15 SCC 67 · Who else cites this
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Inderkumar M
Shivegowda
Kamalamma M.V
State of Karnataka
K. Natarajan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
