Allowed

Sri. Manjunath J v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC14 Nov 2022CRL.P/8611/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka allowed a criminal petition for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for the petitioner, who was accused in a case involving property disputes and cheating. The court held that there was no impediment to the grant of bail as the offences were triable by the Magistrate and evidence against the petitioner was weak, imposing certain conditions.

What did the court decide?

The petition to enlarge petitioner-accused No. 5 on anticipatory bail is allowed, subject to execution of a personal bond with one surety and compliance with specified conditions.

Sri. Manjunath J Vs State of Karnataka — Cheating and Forgery | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

DATED THIS THE 14^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2022

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA BADAMIKAR

¶5

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.8611/2022

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI MANJUNATH J. S/O H.JAYARAM AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS WORKING AS A DRIVER RESIDING AT: NO.24, 1ST MAIN, 1ST CROSS EKADANTHA NAGAR HEROHALLI, BENGALURU NORTH BENGALURU - 560 091

¶8

….PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI.SHASHIDHAR K.N., ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY BYADARAHALLI POLICE STATION REPRESENTED BY P.P. HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BENGALURU - 560001

¶12

...RESPONDENT

¶13

(BY SMT.RASHMI JADHAV, HCGP)

¶14

THIS PETITION IS FILED U/S 438 OF CR.P.C BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS HON’BLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN

¶15

¶16

THE EVENT OF HIS ARREST IN CR.NO.323/2022 OF BYADARAHALLI POLICE STATION, BENGALURU, FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 427, 406, 420, 447, 448, 465, 468 AND 471 READ WITH SECTION 34 OF IPC ON THE FILE OF THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU.

¶17

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

¶18

ORDER

¶19

The petitioner-accused No.5 has filed this petition under Section 438 of Cr.P.C seeking anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest in Crime No.323/2022 registered by the Byadarahalli Police Station for the offence punishable under Sections 427, 406, 420, 447, 448, 465, 468 and 471 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short IPC), pending on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM), Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru.

¶20

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned HCGP for the Respondent - State. Perused the records.

¶21

¶22

The prosecution case discloses that the disputed property was originally owned by accused No.1-Smt.

¶23

Ankamma and she has executed a Registered Sale Deed in favour of complainant on 08.02.1993. It is further alleged that, thereafter Accused No.1 has executed a GPA pertaining to the same property in favour of accused No.2 on 19.04.1995 and accused No.2, on the basis of GPA sold the said property in favour of accused No.3 on 07.06.2017 and accused No.3, in

¶24

turn sold the property in favour of accused No.4 on 27.11.2020. In this regard, the complainant has lodged a complaint on 08.07.2022 making allegations that on 02.07.2022 when he visited his site he found that the compound wall and a temporary structure erected by him was demolished and on enquiry, he got the knowledge of various transactions and thereby he alleged that he was cheated. A complaint was registered against accused Nos.1 to 4 initially. Subsequently, on the basis of voluntary statement said to have been given by accused Nos.2 and 3, GPA is said to have

¶25

¶26

been created by the present petitioner, who is subsequently impleaded as accused No.5. The petitioner apprehending his arrest, he has approached the learned Sessions Judge and the learned Sessions Judge has rejected the bail petition. Hence, the petitioner is before this Court.

¶27

Having heard the arguments and on perusing the records there is no dispute of the fact that one Smt. Ankamma i.e. accused No.1 was the owner of the disputed property. She has sold the property bearing Site No.4 in Sy.No.39 in favour of complainant under a Registered Sale Deed dated 08.02.1993. According to the prosecution, the complainant has erected a temporary shed and constructed a compound wall in the said property. It is also alleged that subsequently the accused No.1 by changing the boundaries of the disputed property Site No.4, has given GPA in favour of accused No.2 on 19.04.1995, and on the basis of GPA, accused No.2 has executed sale deed in favour of her son-in-law/accused No.3

¶28

¶29

and in turn on 27.11.2020 accused No.3 sold the property to accused No.4.

¶30

Now it is alleged that GPA was created by the present

¶31

petitioner who is arrayed as accused No.5 subsequently. But the allegations were based on a voluntary statement of accused Nos.2 and 3 alone. However, it is important to note here that either accused No.2 or 3 or 4 ought to have been in possession of the original GPA. But the original GPA is not yet secured by the Investigating Officer. Except bald allegations there are no other materials placed against present petitioneraccused No.5. The alleged offences are not exclusively punishable with death or life imprisonment and are triable by the learned Magistrate. Under these facts and circumstances, I

¶32

do not find any impediment for admitting him on anticipatory bail. The other apprehensions raised by the learned HCGP can be meted out by imposing certain conditions. As such, the petition needs to be allowed and accordingly, I proceed to pass the following;

¶33

¶34

ORDER

¶35

The petition is allowed .

¶36

The respondent – Police are directed to release the petitioner - accused No.5 on bail in the event of his arrest in Crime No.323/2022 of Byadarahalli Police Station, registered for the offence punishable under Sections 427, 406, 420, 447, 448, 465, 468 and 471 read with Section 34 of IPC, on his executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) with one surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer, subject to following conditions;

¶37

(i) Petitioner shall surrender before the Investigating Officer/SHO within 15 days from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order and in the event of his surrender, the Investigating Officer/SHO shall release the petitioner as directed above.

¶38

(ii) Petitioner shall not indulge in similar offences strictly;

¶39

(iii) Petitioner shall not tamper with the prosecution witnesses directly/ indirectly;

¶40

¶41

(iv) Petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when called for the purpose of investigation besides he shall also mark his attendance in the police station on 1^st and 15th of every calendar month between 9.00 a.m. and 5.00 p.m. until final report is submitted.

¶42

Sd/JUDGE

¶43

MKM

Sri. Manjunath J v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Manjunath J 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

Venkatesh Vs State of Karnataka

Shivaramu R M Vs the State by C.E.N Crime Police Station

Shreesha Sasithota Prabhakaran Vs the State of Karnataka

Anil Kumar H S Vs State by Nandini Layout P S

Raghu Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. Hemanth Kumar. T @ Tony Vs State of Karnataka