Allowed

B L Babu @ Machi Babu v. State by

Karnataka HC25 May 2022CRL.P/2284/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court granted anticipatory bail to two petitioners accused of forgery and cheating. The court ordered personal bonds, sureties, cooperation with investigation, and restrictions on leaving jurisdiction.

What did the court decide?

Release on bail subject to personal bond of Rs.2,00,000/- each with two sureties, cooperation with investigation, no tampering with witnesses, and no leaving jurisdiction without permission.

B L Babu @ Machi Babu Vs State by — Cheating and Forgery | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 25^TH DAY OF MAY, 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.2284/2022 A/W. CRIMINAL PETITION NO.2316/2022

¶7

IN CRIMINAL PETITION NO.2284/2022:

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

B.L.BABU @ MACHI BABU S/O BALARAJU AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.28/1, 1^ST MAIN ROAD, 8^TH CROSS VALMIKINAGARA, MYSURU ROAD BENGALURU-560 026. … PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI B.M.LOKESH, ADVOCATE )

¶11

AND:

¶12

STATE BY ANNAPOORNESHWARI NAGARA P.S. BENGALURU CITY REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDING BENGALURU-560 001. … RESPONDENT

¶13

(BY SRI MAHESH SHETTY, HCGP)

¶14

¶15

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 438 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN THE EVENT OF HIS ARREST IN CR.NO.272/2020 OF ANNAPOORNESHWARI NAGAR POLICE STATION, BENGALURU, FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S. 420, 120-B R/W SECTION 34 OF IPC ON THE FILE OF THE V ADDITIONAL C.M.M., COURT BENGALURU IN C.C.NO.8863/2021.

¶16

IN CRIMINAL PETITION NO.2316/2022:

¶17

BETWEEN:

¶18

JOHN PETER S/O LATE INASANAPPA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, RESIDING AT SLN ROAD SIDDAPPA COLONY KANAKAPURA TOWN RAMANAGARA DISTRICT-562117. … PETITIONER

¶19

(BY SRI B.M.LOKESH, ADVOCATE )

¶20

AND:

¶21

STATE BY ANNAPOORNESHWARI NAGARA P.S. BENGALURU CITY REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDING BENGALURU-560 001. … RESPONDENT

¶22

(BY SRI MAHESH SHETTY, HCGP)

¶23

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 438 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN

¶24

¶25

THE EVENT OF HIS ARREST IN CR.NO.272/2020 OF ANNAPORNESHWARI NAGAR POLICE STATION, BENGALURU FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S. 420, 120-B R/W SECTION 34 OF IPC ON THE FILE OF THE V ADDITIONAL CMM COURT, BENGALURU IN C.C.NO.8863/2021.

¶26

THESE CRIMINAL PETITIONS COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶27

O R D E R

¶28

These petitions are filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. praying to enlarge the petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 on bail, in the event of their arrest in respect of Crime No.272/2020 registered by Annapoorneshwari Nagar Police Station, Kengeri Gate Sub-Division, Bengaluru City, for the offences punishable under Sections 465, 468, 471, 417, 420, 120-B and 506 read with Section 34 of IPC.

¶29

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the

¶30

learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State.

¶31

The factual matrix of the case of the prosecution is

¶32

that, based on the complaint filed by the complainant-

¶33

¶34

G.R. Nataraj that these petitioners have indulged in creating the documents and based on created documents, executed the sale deed in favour of the complainant claiming that the said property belongs to them and received an amount of Rs.49,50,000/-.

¶35

Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that, earlier there was a sale agreement and the petitioner in Crl.P.No.2316/2022 is the General Power of Attorney holder, who acknowledged receipt of an amount of Rs.17,80,000/- and the sale agreement was also cancelled and while canceling the sale agreement dated 21.05.2015, the complainant had purchased the property from accused Nos.3 to 6 and these petitioners are no way concerned to this transaction and when the earlier document of sale agreement was cancelled, there was no brevity of contract between these petitioners and the complainant and these petitioners are falsely implicated in the case.

¶36

Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader

¶37

appearing for the respondent-State would submit that the petitioner in Crl.P.No.2316/2022 was the power of attorney

¶38

¶39

holder and based on the power of attorney, he executed the sale agreement and matter is under investigation and during the course of investigation, it has come to the light that the petitioners have indulged in creation of document and based on the created document, sale deed was executed, inspite of the fact that earlier itself in the year 1986-1987, the property was acquired.

¶40

Having heard the respective counsel and also on perusal of the material on record, the learned counsel for the petitioners is particularly relying upon the cancellation of sale agreement and on perusal of the cancellation of sale agreement, the advance amount which has been received to the tune of Rs.17,80,000/- was refunded and the complainant himself is the party to the cancellation of sale agreement. However, in the complaint, specific allegation is made against these petitioners as well as accused Nos.3 to 6. When such registered document is placed before the Court, it is a fit case to exercise the powers under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. in favour of the petitioners with a direction to co-operate for the investigation with the

¶41

¶42

Investigating Officer and also subject to imposing certain conditions to protect and safeguard the interest of the prosecution. Hence, I pass the following:-

¶43

ORDER

¶44

The petitions are allowed. Consequently, the petitionersaccused Nos.1 and 2 shall be released on bail, in the event of their arrest in connection with Crime No.272/2020 registered by Annapoorneshwari Nagar Police Station, Kengeri Gate SubDivision, Bengaluru City, for the offences punishable under Sections 465, 468, 471, 417, 420, 120-B and 506 read with Section 34 of IPC , subject to the following conditions:-

¶45

(i) The petitioners shall surrender themselves before the Investigating Officer within ten days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order and shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only) each with two sureties each for the likesum to the satisfaction of the concerned Investigating Officer.

¶46

¶47

(ii) The petitioners shall not indulge in tampering the prosecution witnesses.

¶48

(iii) The petitioners shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Court without prior permission till the disposal of the case.

¶49

Sd/JUDGE

¶50

B L Babu @ Machi Babu v. State by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

B L Babu @ Machi Babu v. State by

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

Lingaraju Vs State of Karnataka

Noor Jaan @ Noorunissa Vs State of Karnataka

Nagaraja Vs the State of Karnataka

Amith Vs the State of Karnataka

Mr Ashik Vs the State of Karnataka

Teju K Vs State by Hebbal Police