Allowed

Sri Chethan Krishnaji Rathod v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC10 May 2022CRL.P/2918/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court at Bengaluru granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner in an FIR for offences under Sections 420, 465, 468, 471 IPC. The court allowed the petition relying on parity with a co-accused who had already been granted bail.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Petition allowed; petitioner directed to join investigation; enlarged on bail upon executing bond with sureties; conditions imposed.

Sri Chethan Krishnaji Rathod Vs State of Karnataka — Cheating and Forgery | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF MAY, 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION No.2918/2022

¶7

BETWEEN

¶8

SRI CHETHAN KRISHNAJI RATHOD S/O SRI KRISHNAJI RATHOD AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS R/O NO.30-2, 1^ST CROSS TANK MOHALLA, SHIVAMOGGA SHIVAMOGGA TALUK – 577 204 SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT

¶9

... PETITIONER

¶10

[BY SRI.SIDDANOORU VISHWANATHA, ADVOCATE]

¶11

AND

¶12

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY DODDAPETE POLICE STATION SHIVAMOGGA, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT SHIVAMOGGA – 577 202 REP. BY SPP

¶13

... RESPONDENT

¶14

[BY SRI.SHANKAR H.S., HCGP]

¶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.65/2022 OF DODDAPETE P.S., SHIVAMOGGA FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 420, 465, 468, 471 R/W

¶16

¶17

SEC.34 OF IPC ON THE FILE OF THE HON’BLE JMFC-II, SHIVAMOGGA.

¶18

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

¶19

ORDER

¶20

Petitioner who is arrayed as accused 2 is before this Court seeking an anticipatory bail in FIR No.65/2022 in CR.No.67/2022, registered by the respondent police, which is now pending on the file of the JMFC-II, Shivamogga, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 465, 468, 471 r/w. Section 34 of the IPC.

¶21

Heard Sri Siddanooru Vishwanatha, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Shankar H.S., learned HCGP for the respondent - State.

¶22

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that accused No.3 in the very same crime aforesaid, was before this Court in Crl.P.No.2242/2022. This Court by order dated 12.04.2022 has granted anticipatory bail to accused No.3. He would submit that

¶23

¶24

the petitioner stands on the same footing as of accused No.3 and therefore, seeks an anticipatory bail.

¶25

On the other hand, learned High Court Government Pleader opposes to grant the bail.

¶26

I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for both parties and perused the material on record.

¶27

The reasons rendered by this Court in

¶28

Crl.P.No.2242/2022, while granting anticipatory bail to accused No.3, reads as follows:

¶29

“9. Admittedly, signature found in the photographs and the copy of the sale deed dated 31.01.2022 do not tally with the photograph found in the Adhar Card. According to the petitioner, he has been impersonated by somebody else and the sale deed dame to be registered in favour of Sri.Arun Kumar N., who is accused No.1. These aspects of the matter are to be investigated by the Investigating Agency in detail and the truth is to be unearthed.

¶30

10. Taking note of the fact that prima facie photograph of the petitioner in Adhar Card and sale

¶31

¶32

deed are not tallying each other, there is prima facie sufficient substance in the contention urged on behalf of the petitioner that he may be victim in the incident. Therefore, his right is to be protected. At the same time, custodial investigation of the petitioner is also necessary to unearth the truth. Accordingly, this Court pass the following;

¶33

ORDER

¶34

(i) The Criminal Petition is allowed.

¶35

(ii) Petitioner is directed to join the investigation by appearing before the Investigation Agency ie., Doddapete Police on 22.02.2022 at 10.00 a.m.

¶36

(iii) The Investigation Officer is at liberty to take the petitioner to custody and complete the custodial investigation if any, on the same day before 5.00 p.m. Thereafter, let the petitioner be enlarged on bail, on executing a bond in a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) with two sureties for the likesum.

¶37

(iv) Petitioner shall not directly or indirectly tamper the prosecution evidence or hamper the investigation process in any manner.

¶38

(v) Petitioner shall mark his attendance before the Investigating Officer on every alternate Sunday between 10.00 am and 2.00 pm., till the final report is filed.

¶39

(vi) Petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of Shivamogga District without prior permission.

¶40

(vii) Petitioner shall attend the Court regularly.

¶41

¶42

Violation of any one of the conditions would entitle the prosecution to seek for cancellation of the bail.

¶43

Ordered accordingly.”

¶44

In the light of the fact that the allegations against the petitioner and accused No.3 are same and this Court has granted an anticipatory bail to accused No.3, the petitioner is entitled for the same relief as that of accused No.3 on the ground of parity.

¶45

For the aforesaid reason, the following:

¶46

ORDER

¶47

(i) The Criminal Petition is allowed.

¶48

(ii) Petitioner is directed to join the investigation by appearing before the Investigation Agency - Doddapete Police on 16.05.2022 at 10.00 a.m.

¶49

(iii) The Investigation Officer is at liberty to take the petitioner to custody and complete the custodial investigation if any, on the same day before 5.00 p.m. Thereafter, let the petitioner be enlarged on bail, on executing a bond in a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) with two sureties for the likesum.

¶50

¶51

(iv) Petitioner shall not directly or indirectly tamper the prosecution evidence or hamper the investigation process in any manner.

¶52

(v) Petitioner shall mark his attendance before the Investigating Officer on every alternate Sunday between 10.00 am and 2.00 pm., till the final report is filed.

¶53

(vi) Petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of Shivamogga District without prior permission.

¶54

(vii) Petitioner shall attend the Court regularly.

¶55

(viii) Violation of any one of the conditions would entitle the prosecution to seek for cancellation of the bail.

¶56

Ordered accordingly.

¶57

Sd/JUDGE

¶58

nvj CT:HB

Sri Chethan Krishnaji Rathod v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Chethan Krishnaji Rathod 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

Domnic @ Jommy Vs the State by

Sri H R Bhagavan Vs L I C of India

Shivakumar B Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Prashanth Sambargi Vs the State of Karnataka

Mr. Mohammed Shameer Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Ratan Babulal Lath Vs State of Karnataka