Allowed

Dr. Lakshmikantha S R v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC3 Mar 2023CRL.P/1456/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal petition under Section 438 CrPC, the petitioner sought anticipatory bail in a cheating and forgery case where he issued then cancelled a birth certificate. The Court allowed the petition, directing custodial investigation and bail upon execution of a bond.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted upon execution of a bond of Rs. 50,000 with one surety; petitioner directed to appear for custodial investigation.

Dr. Lakshmikantha S R Vs State of Karnataka — Cheating and Forgery | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

CRL.P No. 1456 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 3^RD DAY OF MARCH, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA

¶7

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 1456 OF 2023

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

Digitally signed by R MANJUNATHA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶10

DR. LAKSHMIKANTHA.S.R S/O RUDRAIAH.S.G AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS WORKING AS TALUK HEALTH OFFICER TALUK HEALTH OFFICER DHO OFFICE COMPLEX OPP AMANIKERE TUMKURU – 572 105. NOW R/AT GOKULAM 5^TH MAIN, 2^ND BLOCK KUVEMPU NAGAR TUMAKURU – 572 103. PERMANANT R/O AREHALLI VILLAGE BELUR TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT – 573 101. (BY SRI. PARAMESHWAR.N.HEGDE, ADVOCATE)

¶11

…PETITIONER

¶12

AND:

¶13

STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH NEW EXTENSION POLICE THILAK PARK CIRCLE TUMKURU

¶14

¶15

CRL.P No. 1456 of 2023

¶16

REP BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BANGALORE 01

¶17

…RESPONDENT

¶18

(BY SRI. VISWAMURTHY, HCGP)

¶19

THIS CRL.P IS FILED UNDER SECTION 438 CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS HONOURABLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN THE EVENT OF HIS ARREST IN CRIME NO.0009/2023REGISTERED BY THE RESPONDENT POLICE STATION (NEW EXTENSION POLICE THILAK PARK CIRCLE) FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 420, 468, 511 R/W 34 OF INDIAN PENAL CODE AND ETC.,

¶20

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

¶21

ORDER

¶22

Heard Sri. Parameshwar.N., learned counsel for the

¶23

petitioner and Sri. Viswamurthy, learned High Court

¶24

Government Pleader for the respondent-State.

¶25

Present petition is filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. with the following prayer:

¶26

“WHEREFORE, for the reason stated herein above, this Hon’ble court plese to direct the respondent Thilak Park Circle Police to enlarge the petitioner on bail in

¶27

3 - CRL.P No. 1456 of 2023

¶28

the event of his arrest in Crime No.0009/2023 registered by the respondent police station (New Extension Police Thilak Park Circle) for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 468, 511 R/witness 34 of Indian Penal Code pending on the file of Adl. Civil Judge (Sr.Dn) and CJM, Tumkur in the interest of Justice and Equity.”

¶29

3. Brief facts of the case:

¶30

A complaint came to be lodged by Gajendrakumara Gowda S/o. Srinivasaiah being the District President of Karnataka Rashtra Samithi Paksha with the New Extension Police, Thilak Park Circle, Tumakuru which was registered in Crime No.9/2023 on 31.01.2023 for the offences punishable under sections 420, 468, 511 read with section 34 of IPC. The gist of the complaint averments reveals that on 16.12.2021, Amathur Rafe W/o Shafi Ulla delivered a female child in her house. With regard to the same, the second accused wanted a birth certificate for obtaining certain benefits from the Government. The petitioner issued such a certificate on 12.10.2022 in the capacity of Administrative Health Officer, Primary Health Care Centre, Kothithopu, Tumakuru Taluk. Issuance of such

¶31

¶32

CRL.P No. 1456 of 2023

¶33

certificate was questioned and the petitioner cancelled the same by another letter dated 28.10.2022.

¶34

On receipt of the said complaint, police registered the case and are investigating the matter in respect of the aforesaid offences. In the meantime, petitioner has approached the jurisdictional District Court for grant of anticipatory bail in C.Misc.No.127/2023 which was dismissed by order dated 06.02.2023.

¶35

Thereafter, the petitioner is before this Court.

¶36

Reiterating the grounds urged in the petition, Sri Parameshwar N. Hegde, learned counsel for the petitioner, contended that the offences alleged to have been committed by the petitioner is now retraced by the petitioner by issuing another letter dated 28.10.2022 and therefore, the offence, if any, can only be as temporary offence which has bona fiddy, as he was not knowing that he is not authorized to issue any such certificate and the same is blown out of proportion by the complainant and therefore, sought for grant of anticipatory bail.

¶37

Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader opposes for grant of bail on the ground that the petitioner was

¶38

5 - CRL.P No. 1456 of 2023

¶39

not at all entitled and authorized under the relevant provisions to issue any such certificate to the second accused and per se, the act of the petitioner is against all established legal requirements and therefore, the custodial investigation of the petitioner is very much necessary to unearth the truth in the incident and sought for rejection of the bail petition.

¶40

In the light of the rival contentions of the parties, this Court perused the materials on record meticulously.

¶41

On such perusal of the material on record, it is seen that the girl child has been delivered by the second accused in Tiptur on 16.12.2021. In that regard, the second accused applied for birth certificate on 16.05.2022 in Zilla Panchayat Office, Tumakuru. There are some discrepancies as to the date of birth of female child. Be that as it may, in respect of the birth of the female child in the house of the second accused, petitioner herein issued a certificate on 12.10.2022. Later on, he cancelled the same on 28.10.2022. Complainant being the District President, Karnataka Rashtra Samithi Paksha lodged the complaint with the police and the police are investigating

¶42

¶43

CRL.P No. 1456 of 2023

¶44

the matter. Abscondence of the accused has resulted in scuttling the investigation process.

¶45

Since the birth certificate issued by the petitioner is cancelled by the petitioner himself, by issuing a letter dated 28.10.2022, there is some force in the arguments canvassed on behalf of the petitioner that he has retraced his mistake. Whether at all issuance of the certificate would only be termed as a illegality or irregularity is to be investigated and adjudicated by the Investigation Authority and the learned Magistrate after receipt of the final report under section 173 Cr.P.C. It is too premature for this Court to hold a mini trial to find out the veracity of the allegations leveled against the accused / petitioner.

¶46

Suffice to say that the abscondence of the accused has resulted in scuttling the investigation process and taking note of the fact that the custodial investigation of the petitioner is necessary as to find out the genuineness of the document said to have been issued by the petitioner. If the petitioner is directed to join the investigation and undergo limited period of

¶47

¶48

CRL.P No. 1456 of 2023

¶49

custodial investigation, the same would meet the ends of justice.

¶50

Accordingly, without expressing further on merits of

¶51

the matter, the following order is passed.

¶52

O R D E R

¶53

The Criminal Petition is allowed .

¶54

Petitioner is directed to appear before the Investigating Agency on 13.03.2023 at about 10.00 a.m.

¶55

Investigation Officer is at liberty to take the accused / petitioner to custody and complete the custodial investigation on the same day, before 5.00 p.m. and thereafter, enlarge the petitioner on bail, on petitioner executing a bond in a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with one surety for the likesum.

¶56

Petitioner shall co-operate with the Investigating Agency.

¶57

Petitioner shall not tamper with the prosecution witnesses in any manner.

¶58

¶59

CRL.P No. 1456 of 2023

¶60

6. Petitioner shall attend the Court regularly.

¶61

If any of the above conditions are violated, the prosecution is at liberty to seek cancellation of this bail order.

¶62

Sd/JUDGE

¶63

UN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 49

Dr. Lakshmikantha S R v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr. Lakshmikantha S R 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

Rohith @ Sai Vs State of Karnataka

Venkatesh G Vs the State of Karnataka

Bhaskar B R Vs State by

Sri Sagayaraj Vs State of Karnataka

Y Nagappa Vs the State of Karnataka

Sharath Yadav @ Sharath Vs State of Karnataka