Allowed

Revannegowda U T v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC9 Nov 2022CRL.P/9736/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C, the Karnataka High Court allowed the petitioner's anticipatory bail request. The court noted the petitioner had cooperated in the investigation, the charge sheet was filed, and the offences were not serious enough to deny bail.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner enlarged on bail on personal bond of Rs.50,000 with one surety of equal amount subject to conditions of surrender, no tampering, no further offences, regular appearance, and no leaving juri

Revannegowda U T Vs the State of Karnataka — Cheating and Forgery | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2022

¶2

BEFORE

¶3

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA BADAMIKAR

¶4

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.9736/2022

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

REVANNEGOWDA U.T S/O LATE THIMMEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS R/AT UNDAVAADI VILLAGE GAVADAGERE HOBLI HUNSUR TALUK MYSURU DISTRICT – 571 105

¶7

….PETITIONER

¶8

(BY SRI.P.NATARAJU, ADVOCATE) AND:

¶9

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY HUNSUR TOWN POLICE STATION HUNSUR MYSURU DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDING BENGALURU – 560 001

¶10

...RESPONDENT

¶11

(BY SRI.K.NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP)

¶12

¶13

*****

¶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 THE EVENT OF HIS ARREST IN CR.NO.138/2015 OF HUNSUR TOWN P.S., MYSURU DISTRICT FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 192(A) OF THE KARNATAKA LAND REVENUE ACT AND SEC. 420, 465, 471, 468 OF IPC PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE LEARNED ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE (SR. DN) AND C.J.M COURT, HUNSUR MYSURU DISTRICT BY ALLOWING THIS PETITION AND ETC.

¶15

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

¶16

ORDER

¶17

The petitioner has filed this petition under Section 438 of Cr.P.C for enlarging him on anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest in Crime No.138/2015 of Hunusur Town Police Station registered for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 465, 471 and 468 of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’) and under Section 192(A) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, which is subsequently registered in C.C.No.782/2021 pending on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Hunsur.

¶18

¶19

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

¶20

HCGP for respondent – State. Perused the records.

¶21

The allegations against the petitioner are that the petitioner was serving as a SDA in Hunsur Taluk Office i.e., in the Revenue Department and he has issued false cultivation certificates in favour of number of persons and thereby, cheated the Government.

¶22

A preliminary enquiry was held and then, the petitioner was suspended from service. The Tahasildar has lodged a complaint in this regard and on the basis of the complaint, the crime came to be registered. The Investigating Officer subsequently investigated the matter and also

¶23

submitted the charge sheet.

¶24

In the charge sheet, the petitioner – accused was not shown as an absconding accused, but it is simply reported that he was not arrested, which means that his presence was not

¶25

¶26

required by the Investigating Agency. However, the learned Magistrate initially has issued summons and subsequently, on the ground that summons have been served on the relative, the learned Magistrate has proceeded to issue warrant straight away. There is no speaking order by the learned Magistrate also. Hence, apprehending his arrest, the petitioner is before this Court.

¶27

Having heard the arguments and perusing the

¶28

records, it is evident that the petitioner was alleged to have been issued false cultivation certificates. Admittedly, he is now suspended from service and the investigation is concluded and charge sheet has been laid down. Apart from that the records also disclose that during the course of the investigation, he did

¶29

appear before the Investigating Officer and his statement was also recorded by the Investigating Officer on 20.04.2017 itself. Hence, it is evident that the petitioner has all along co-operated during the course of investigation. The

¶30

¶31

Investigating Agency did not arrest the petitioner in view of the fact that he has co-operated with the Investigating Agency. The learned Magistrate has straight away issued warrant on the ground that summons has been served on the relative, but there is no evidence to show that it was within the knowledge of the petitioner. The offences alleged are not punishable with death or life imprisonment and are triable by the learned Magistrate. Under these circumstances, I do not find any impediment in admitting the petitioner on anticipatory bail as the investigation is concluded and charge sheet has been laid down. Hence, this petition needs to be allowed and accordingly, I proceed to pass the following;

¶32

ORDER

¶33

The petition is allowed . The petitioner/accused is directed to be enlarged on bail in the event of his arrest in Crime No.138/2015 of Hunsur Town Police Station, registered for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 465, 471 and 468 of IPC and under Section 192(A) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act,

¶34

¶35

1964, pending on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Hunsur, Mysuru District on executing personal bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with one surety for the like-sum to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer or the concerned trial Court, subject to the following conditions:

¶36

i) Petitioner shall surrender himself before the concerned Court within fifteen days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order and in the event of surrender, the concerned Court shall release him on bail as directed.

¶37

ii) He shall not directly or indirectly tamper with any of the prosecution witnesses.

¶38

iii) He shall not indulge in any similar offences.

¶39

iv) He shall regularly appear before the Court unless he is exempted by specific order and shall co-operate in speedy disposal of the matter.

¶40

¶41

v) He shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Court without prior permission.

¶42

Sd/JUDGE

¶43

NBM

Revannegowda U T v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Revannegowda U T v. the 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

Rafiq Pasha Vs State of Karnataka

Anthoni Joseph Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Dhananjaya Vs State of Karnataka

Sri N Prakash Vs State of Karnataka by

Mr Anthony Roob Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri M N Harish M.Com.Llb Vs State of Karnataka