Maruthi. R Vs State by Extension Police

THIS CRL.P FILED U/S 438 CR.PC (FILED U/S 482 BNNS) PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON ANTICIPATORY BAIL IN THE EVENT OF HIS ARREST IN CRIME NO.151/2025 OF EXTENSION POLICE DAVANAGERE ON THE FILE OF 2ND ADDL.CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, DAVANAGERE FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 406, 465, 471, 468, 420 AND 34 OF IPC BY ALLOWING THIS PETITION.

¶32

THIS CRL.P, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶33

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH

¶34

3 -

¶35

NC: 2026:KHC:16618 CRL.P No. 14837 of 2025

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

ORAL ORDER

¶38

The petitioner, who is arraigned as accused No.2, is before this Court seeking grant of anticipatory bail in Crime No.151/2025 of the respondent police for the offences under Sections 406, 465, 471, 468, 420 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

¶39

Brief facts of the case:

¶40

The case of the prosecution is that a complaint was registered by the complainant stating that she was working as a Community Co-ordinator, City Corporation, Davanagere. It is alleged in the complaint that, in the years 2015-2016 and 2016-2017, they had given permission to the Driving Schools to give training to 366 candidates/beneficiaries. An amount of Rs. 4,00,000/was sanctioned to Vinayaka Driving School for having given training to the candidates. During the investigation, it was found that only 45 members have obtained a proper driving licence. However, another 55 persons have obtained duplicate driving licences. Similarly, many such driving schools have committed fraud and caused loss to

¶41

4 -

¶42

NC: 2026:KHC:16618 CRL.P No. 14837 of 2025

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

the City Corporation, in a sum of Rs. 13,74,250/-. Hence the complaint. The investigation is in progress.

¶45

Heard Sri Raju C.N., learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt. Anitha Girish N., learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent – State.

¶46

The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner is arraigned as accused No.2. The alleged incident had occurred in the year 2016-2017. The complaint came to be registered on 19.07.2025. There is an inordinate delay in lodging the complaint. There is nothing to show that the petitioner had indulged in either fabricating those fake or duplicate driving licences or he has a nexus with the said issue. Moreover, the petitioner has deep roots in the society, and he is running Vinayaka Driving School, Davanagere, and he will abide by the conditions imposed by this Court in the event of his release on bail. Making such submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner prays to allow the petition.

¶47

Per contra , learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent – State vehemently submitted that the petitioner and other driving institutions have committed

¶48

5 -

¶49

NC: 2026:KHC:16618 CRL.P No. 14837 of 2025

¶50

HC-KAR

¶51

fraud to the City Corporation by issuing fake driving licenses to the beneficiaries under the Mahanagara Palike Scheme and caused huge loss to the Palike. Therefore, it is not appropriate to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner, since the custodial interrogation is very much essential in such cases. Making such submissions, the learned High Court Government Pleader prays to reject the petition.

¶52

Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the averments of the complaint, it appears from the record that the alleged incident had occurred in the year 2015-2016 and 2016-2017 under the Day-Nalm Scheme organized by City Corporation, Davanagere, where it is alleged that, fake driving licences were issued to the beneficiaries under the said scheme and caused huge loss to the said Corporation. Hence, a complaint was filed on 19.07.2025.

¶53

Be that as it may, the delay in lodging the complaint certainly would defeat the case of the prosecution. Considering the inordinate delay in lodging the complaint, it is appropriate to grant bail to the petitioner by imposing

¶54

6 -

¶55

NC: 2026:KHC:16618 CRL.P No. 14837 of 2025

¶56

HC-KAR

¶57

suitable conditions that would take care of the apprehension of the prosecution.

¶58

Hence, I proceed to pass the following:

¶59

ORDER

¶60

(i) The Criminal Petition is allowed.

¶61

(ii) The petitioner is ordered to be

¶62

enlarged on bail, in the event of his arrest, in Crime No.151/2025 of respondent-police for the offences stated supra , on executing a personal bond in a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) with one surety for the like sum to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer.

¶63

(iii) The petitioner shall appear before the

¶64

Investigating Officer within a period of one month from date of receipt of copy, to execute the personal bond and also to furnish surety.

¶65

(iv) The petitioner shall co-operate with

¶66

the investigation as and when it is necessary till filing of the final report.

¶67

7 - NC: 2026:KHC:16618 CRL.P No. 14837 of 2025

¶68

HC-KAR

¶69

(v) The petitioner shall appear before the

¶70

Trial Court on all hearing dates without fail.

¶71

(vi) The petitioner shall not threaten the

¶72

prosecution witnesses, and he shall not hamper

¶73

the Court proceedings.

¶74

In case the petitioner violates any of the bail conditions as stated above, liberty is reserved to the prosecution to file a necessary application for cancellation of bail.

¶75

Sd/(S RACHAIAH) JUDGE

¶76

BSS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 15

Maruthi. R v. State by Extension Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Maruthi. R v. State by Extension Police

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 Sujith Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Dinesh Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. Venkateshwaralu. P. S. Vs the State of Karnataka

B Seenappa Vs State of Karnataka

Nagaraj R Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Vinaya H T Vs the State of Karnataka