Smt Shaila Mohan Vs State of Karnataka

¶1

1 - NC: 2025:KHC:880 CRL.P No. 13732 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 9^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 13732 OF 2024 (438(Cr.PC) / 482(BNSS))

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SMT. SHAILA MOHAN WIFE OF SHRI MOHAN, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, FORMER MEMBER OF COMMITTEE FOR REGULARISATION OF UNAUTHORISED OCCUPATION (BAGAR HUKUM SAGUVALI SAMITHI) R/AT BELUR TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT – 573 115.

¶9

SHRI T R RAMESH SON SHRI RUDRAIAH, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, FORMER MEMBER OF COMMITTEE FOR REGULARISATION OF UNAUTHORISED OCCUPATION (BAGAR HUKUM SAGUVALI SAMITHI) R/AT: BELUR TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT – 573 115.

¶10

Digitally signed by VISHAL NINGAPPA PATTIHAL Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶11

SHRI PARVATHA GOWDA SON OF KALLEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS FORMER MEMBER OF COMMITTEE FOR REGULARISATION OF UNAUTHORISED OCCUPATION (BAGAR HUKUM SAGUVALI SAMITHI) R/AT BELUR TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT – 573 115.

¶12

SHRI ESHWAR PRASAD SON OF KASHAIAH, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, FORMER MEMBER OF COMMITTEE FOR REGULARISATION OF UNAUTHORISED OCCUPATION (BAGAR HUKUM SAGUVALI SAMITHI) R/AT BELUR TALUK,

¶13

2 -

¶14

NC: 2025:KHC:880 CRL.P No. 13732 of 2024

¶15

HASSAN DISTRICT – 573 115.

¶16

SHRI RANGANATH B. R. S/O. RANGANAYAK, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, FORMER MEMBER OF COMMITTEE FOR REGULARISATION OF UNAUTHORISED OCCUPATION (BAGAR HUKUM SAGUVALI SAMITHI) R/AT BELUR TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT – 573 115.

¶17

…PETITIONERS

¶18

(BY SRI AMAN NALINA LINGESH, ADVOCATE)

¶19

AND:

¶20

STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY BELUR POLICE STATION, BELUR TALUK, HASSAN, REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶21

…RESPONDENT

¶22

(BY SRI B.N.JAGADEESH, ADDL. SPP FOR RESPONDENT/STATE)

¶23

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 OF THE BHARATIYA NAGARIKA SURAKSHA SAMHITA, 2023 (PREVIOUSLY UNDER SECTION 438 OF CR.PC), GRANT THE RELIEF OF ANTICIPATORY BAIL TO THE PETITIONERS AND ISSUE A DIRECTION TO THE RESPONDENT STATED THAT IN THE EVENT OF ARREST OF THE PETITIONERS IN CONNECTION WITH THE FIR IN CR.NO.0098/2023 REGISTERED BY BELUR P.S. FOR THE ALLEGED COMMISSION OF OFFENCE P/U/S 468, 464, 465, 471,409, 420, 120 B OF IPC AND PENDING CONSIDERATION ON THE FILE OF LXXXI ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE BENGALURU CITY THE PETITIONERS SHALL BE RELEASED ON BAIL AND ETC.,

¶24

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶25

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:880 CRL.P No. 13732 of 2024

¶26

ORAL ORDER

¶27

Heard Sri Aman Nalina Lingesh, learned counsel

¶28

for the petitioner and learned Additional State Public Prosecutor for respondent - State.

¶29

The petitioners are before this Court seeking anticipatory bail, for it having been turned down by the concerned Court in Crl.Misc.Nos.8898/2024 and 8899/2024. This Court qua other accused in Crl.P.No.11870/2024 disposed on 28.11.2024 has granted anticipatory bail to a co-accused by rendering the following reasons:

¶30

“3. This Court has while directing investigation to be conducted into the alleged bartering away of the government land has observed as follows: -

¶31

“The petitioners at the relevant point in time i.e., between 2016 and 2023 were in the Council, all of them being political entities appointed as Chairman and Members of a particular Committee; the Committee known as Bagair Hukum Saguvali Samithi (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Samithi’ for

¶32

4 -

¶33

NC: 2025:KHC:880 CRL.P No. 13732 of 2024

¶34

short). Accused No.1 / 1st petitioner was at the relevant point in time a Member of the Legislative Assembly of Belur constituency. He was the Chairman of the Samithi. Accused Nos.2 to 4 were its members and accused Nos.5 to 10 were the erstwhile members. Accused Nos.11 to 14 are the Tahsildars who were functioning at the relevant point in time at the said place and were Secretaries of the Samithi. The allegation revolves around the functioning of the said Samithi. It is alleged that the Samithi has created records and bartered away Government lands to an extent of 2750 acres to 1430 bogus beneficiaries, which are valued at more than Rs.750/- crores in the constituency of accused No.1, who was the Chairman of the Samithi. Based upon this allegation, the 2^nd respondent/complainant seeks to knock at the doors of the jurisdictional Police to register the complaint. No action was taken. He knocks at the doors of the learned Magistrate invoking Section 200 of the Cr.P.C. seeking a reference for conduct of investigation into the allegations so made. The complaint is referred for investigation to the jurisdictional Police under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C., after which a crime comes to be registered in Crime No.98 of 2023 for the aforequoted offences. This Court by its order dated 16.06.2023 directed that no precipitate action be

¶35

5 -

¶36

NC: 2025:KHC:880 CRL.P No. 13732 of 2024

¶37

taken against the petitioners and the same is subsisting even as on date.

¶38

3. Heard Sri Ashok Haranahalli, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners, Sri B.N. Jagadeesha, learned Additional State Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.1 and Sri S. Umapathi, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2.

¶39

4. The learned senior counsel would seek to contend that the complaint is bald and vague. What are the lands that are granted or what are the documents that are fabricated to grant the lands in favour of fictitious persons is not forthcoming from the complaint. If the complaint is so bald, the learned senior counsel would submit that what investigation the police would do, is ununderstandable. He would submit that all the allegations are untrue and some of the accused being Government servants, no sanction is accorded under Section 197 of the Cr.P.C. The learned senior counsel would submit that the present complaint is an abuse of the process of law and the members of the Samithi have acted strictly in consonance with law.

¶40

5. Per contra, the learned counsel for the complainant would take this Court through the statement of objections so filed by him and reports

¶41

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:880 CRL.P No. 13732 of 2024

¶42

of Government servants filed by themselves when enquiry was directed to be held by the Assistant Commissioner into the illegalities. The Assistant Commissioner clearly holds that all the lands granted were bogus based upon fake genealogical tree certificates and granted to fake beneficiaries. The Government land in this manner is illegally donated for personal gains of the members of the Chairman, members of the Samithi and officers. He would contend that the question of sanction would arise only after investigation. The matter should be permitted to be investigated.”

¶43

Xxxxxx

¶44

In view of the preceding analysis, I hold that Bagair Hukum Committee has acted Bagair Kanoon, albeit, prima facie.

¶45

12. Finding no merit in the petition, the petition stands rejected.

¶46

It is made clear that the observations made in the course of the order are only for the purpose of consideration of the case of petitioners under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. and the same shall not bind or influence the proceedings pending against them.”

¶47

Pursuant to the dismissal of the aforesaid petition, in which the present petitioner is the 8^th petitioner, files Crl.Misc.No.8899/2024 seeking grant

¶48

7 -

¶49

NC: 2025:KHC:880 CRL.P No. 13732 of 2024

¶50

of anticipatory bail in the light of the investigation permitted by this Court. This is turned down on the score that this Court has directed investigation as the role of this petitioner is also found. A perusal at the complaint or the finding rendered by this Court while dismissing the aforesaid Crl.P.No.5030/2023 nothing in particular against this petitioner who was a member of the Committee and an advocate of the area is found, prima facie, while several allegations are found against others.”

¶51

4. In the light of the petitioners being members of the Committee and the offences not heinous or punishable beyond seven years of imprisonment, I deem it appropriate to grant the petitioners anticipatory bail.”

¶52

In the light of anticipatory bail being granted to

¶53

the co-accused, I deem it appropriate to grant anticipatory bail to the present petitioners.

¶54

For the aforesaid reasons, the following:

¶55

ORDER

¶56

a. The criminal petition filed by the petitioners under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. is allowed.

¶57

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:880 CRL.P No. 13732 of 2024

¶58

b. The petitioners are ordered to be released on bail in the event of their arrest in Crime No.98/2023 of Belur Police Station, on the following conditions:

¶59

(i) The petitioners shall furnish a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One lakh only) each with one solvent surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the Trial Court;

¶60

(ii) The petitioners shall be regular in appearing before the Court on every date of hearing as also when called upon to do so by the Trial Court;

¶61

(iii) The petitioners shall not tamper with evidence or cause any threat to any of the prosecution witness/s in any manner.

¶62

(iv) The petitioners shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when called and submit all documents and details as may be called upon by the Investigating Officer.

¶63

(v) The petitioners shall not leave the jurisdiction of this Court without prior permission.

¶64

(vi) In the event of violation of any of the above terms, the above bail shall stand automatically cancelled.

¶65

NC: 2025:KHC:880 CRL.P No. 13732 of 2024

¶66

9 -

¶67

The observations made above are only for the purpose of consideration of the application for anticipatory bail and the same shall not in any manner influence the trial. The Trial Court shall consider the case on its merits and without being influenced by this order.

¶68

Ordered accordingly.

¶69

Sd/(M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE

¶70

NAA/CT-ASC List No.: 19 Sl No.: 8

Smt Shaila Mohan v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Shaila Mohan v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Bhavikatte Bharamappa S/O Hanumanthappa Vs Assistant Registrar of Co. Operative Societies (Arcs)

B. Neelakant Vs N.C. Patil

Kaleem Ahamad S/O Shafi Ahamad Vs the Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited

Shri G K Kumar Vs State of Karnataka

Kum. Jeeva S., Vs the State of Karnataka

Manappuram Finance Ltd. Vs the State of Karnataka