Smt U R Rukmini Vs State of Karnataka

THIS CRL.P FILED U/S 438 CR.PC (FILED U/S 482 BNNS) PRAYING TO GRANT ANTICIPATORY BAIL IN THE EVENT OF THEIR ARREST IN CR.NO.370/2025 OF THE RESPONDENT BILIKERE P.S. WHICH IS PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE HONBLE ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN.) AND JMFC COURT HUNSUR, MYSORE DIST, FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCES P/U/S. 314, 316(5), 318(4), 319(1), 335, 336(1), 336(2), 336(3), 336(4) R/W SEC.190 OF BNS-2023 WITH A DIRECTION TO RELEASE HIM ON BAIL IN THE EVENT OF ARREST IN THE ABOVE CRIME, ON SUCH TERMS AND CONDITIONS IN THE ENDS OF JUSTICE.

¶28

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

¶29

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH

¶30

3 -

¶31

NC: 2026:KHC:14196 CRL.P No. 600 of 2026

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

ORAL ORDER

¶34

The petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 are before

¶35

this Court seeking for grant of anticipatory bail in Crime No.370/2025 of respondent-police for the offence under Sections 314, 316(5), 318(4), 319(1), 335, 336(1), 336(2), 336(3), 336(4) r/w 190 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

¶36

Brief facts of the case:

¶37

The case of the prosecution is that Smt.Nandini C.P. was working as Sub-Registrar of Mysuru North Division lodged a complaint before the respondent-police stating that she had received a complaint from Smt.Vishala W/o Govindegowda stating that, the said Vishala was the owner of the property bearing Sy.No.60/5 measuring 2 acres. However, the said property has been alienated on 12.11.2025 on the basis of forged GPA and sought for suitable action to be initiated against the persons who produced the fabricated GPA. Based on the said information, Smt. Nandini had lodged a complaint to

¶38

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:14196 CRL.P No. 600 of 2026

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

the higher officials for the suitable action and also lodged a complaint before the respondent-police for the purpose of initiating criminal action.

¶41

Based on the said complaint, the respondent-

¶42

police have registered a case against the accused in crime number stated supra.

¶43

Heard Sri.Kumara K.G., learned counsel for the

¶44

petitioners and Sri.Rangaswamy R., learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent-State.

¶45

It is submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that, petitioners are the trustees of

¶46

Apara Educational and Charitable Trust. They were running a school under the trust and they had intention to purchase the property. Smt. Vishala along with her husband Govindegowda agreed to sell the property. The sale could not be completed. However, Smt. Vishala executed agreement of sale dated 28.12.2022 and also a registered General Power of Attorney dated 29.12.2022 in

¶47

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:14196 CRL.P No. 600 of 2026

¶48

HC-KAR

¶49

favour of the petitioners. It is further submitted that the petitioners after obtaining the registered sale deed on 10.11.2025 started running the college. However, the vendor of the petitioners filed suit in OS.No.397/2025 seeking for ejectment alleging that forged documents have been used for the purpose of getting the property registered. The matter is under investigation and a civil suit is pending for consideration. The sale agreement executed by Smt.Vishala w/o Govindegowda has not been disputed. The petitioners are the innocent of the alleged offenses and they have been falsely implicated in this case. The entire dispute is civil in nature. They will cooperate with the investigation and abide by the conditions imposed by this Court in the event of their release on anticipatory bail. Making such submissions, he prays to allow the petition.

¶50

Per contra, the learned High Court Government

¶51

Pleader for respondent-State vehemently submitted that, the complainant being the Sub-Registrar had lodged a

¶52

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:14196 CRL.P No. 600 of 2026

¶53

HC-KAR

¶54

complaint stating that the documents produced by the petitioners for the purpose of getting the sale deed executed is forged and fabricated. By virtue of the said document, the property got alienated in favour of the trust. The petitioners knowingly that a forged document is being produced before the authority, projected as if it is genuine and got the sale-deed executed in favour of trust with an intention to deceive the complainant. Therefore, it is not appropriate to grant bail. In fact, custodial interrogation is very much essential. Making such submissions, he prays to reject the petition.

¶55

Having heard the leaned counsel for the

¶56

respective parties and on perusal of the averments of the complaint, it appears from the record that, the petitioners are the trustees of educational institution. An agreement of sale was executed in their favour by Smt.Vishala w/o Govindegowda, who in turn had lodged a complaint before

¶57

the Sub-Registrar stating that the property bearing Sy.No.60/5 measuring 2 acres has been fraudulently got

¶58

7 - NC: 2026:KHC:14196 CRL.P No. 600 of 2026

¶59

HC-KAR

¶60

alienated on the strength of forged GPA. It is needless to state that said Smt.Vishala W/o Govidnegowda had filed suit for ejectment before the Senior Civil Judge, Hunsru and the matter is pending for consideration. Such being the fact, it is appropriate grant anticipatory bail as prayed for by considering the nature and gravity of the offence.

¶61

Hence, I proceed to pass the following:

¶62

ORDER

¶63

(i) The petition is allowed.

¶64

(ii) The petitioners are ordered to be

¶65

enlarged on bail in the event of their arrest in Crime No.370/2025 of respondent-police for the offence under Sections 314, 316(5), 318(4), 319(1), 335, 336(1), 336(2), 336(3), 336(4) r/w 190 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, on executing personal bond in

¶66

a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh

¶67

8 -

¶68

NC: 2026:KHC:14196 CRL.P No. 600 of 2026

¶69

HC-KAR

¶70

only) each with one surety each for the

¶71

likesum to the satisfaction of the Trial Court.

¶72

(iii) The petitioners shall appear before

¶73

the jurisdictional police within a period of one month from today to execute personal bond and also to furnish surety.

¶74

(iv) The petitioners shall co-operate with

¶75

investigation till filing of the charge sheet.

¶76

(v) The petitioners shall not threaten or

¶77

tamper the prosecution witnesses nor hamper the proceedings of the Court.

¶78

(vi) The petitioners shall appear before

¶79

the Trial Court on all hearing dates without fail.

¶80

(vii) The petitioners shall not commit

¶81

any criminal cases till disposal of the case.

¶82

9 -

¶83

NC: 2026:KHC:14196 CRL.P No. 600 of 2026

¶84

HC-KAR

¶85

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

¶86

Sd/(S RACHAIAH) JUDGE

¶87

NR/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 36

Smt U R Rukmini v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt U R Rukmini 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

Pranav S Katagihallimath Vs State by Intelligence Officer

Sri M Muniraju Vs State by Karnataka

Sri Tummala Rajanikanth Vs the State of Karnataka

Syed Thousif @ Khajil Vs State of Karnataka

Jayaswamy @ Halaswamy Vs State of Karnataka

Bharath.H.N Vs State by Mandya Ruraal Police