K. Mahalakshmi & Others vs State Of Karnataka

H.P. Sandesh, J

This petition is filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. praying this Court to enlarge the petitioners on bail in the event of their arrest in respect of Crime

No.239/2015 registered by the Tavarekere Police Station, Ramanagara, for the offence punishable under Sections 143, 147, 420, 323, 506 read with

Section 149 of IPC.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State.

The factual matrix of the case is that on 04.05.2015, the complainant appeared before the police and lodged the complaint stating that he had

purchased the property bearing Sy.Nos.52, 53, 56, 57, 58 and 59 in total 40 acres from one Sri Patel Muniyappa in the year 1981 through GPA and

also got the sale deed on 09.08.1992 through the Court decree and he is cultivating the land standing in his name. Out of that, he had formed the layout

and sold the sites in 25 acres in total 500 sites and remaining 15 acres is in his possession, but these petitioners have created documents in the year

2015 with an intention to cheat the complainant and indulged in creation of the documents forging the signature and got the documents registered in

Rajajinagar Sub-Registrar office stating that they have purchased the property in the year 1947 itself and trespassed the land and assaulted the coolie

workers, who were working for the construction of the Temple. Based on the complaint, the police have registered the case, investigated the matter

and filed the charge-sheet.

The learned counsel for the petitioners would vehemently contend that these petitioners are innocent and they have not indulged in creation of any

documents and the petitioners are the original owners of the property in question and there is a civil dispute between the parties with regard to the title

is concerned and in order to over come the said civil dispute, the complainant has given the criminal colour to the civil dispute and hence the petitioners

are entitled for bail.

Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State would submit that based on the complaint, case has

been registered, investigation has been conducted, charge-sheet has been filed and the summons was issued and when the same was not served,

NBW was issued and the petitioners have absconded. Hence, the Court has issued the proclamation against the petitioners and the proclaimed

offenders are not entitled for the relief of anticipatory bail. The learned counsel submits that the Trial Court rejected the bail petition on the ground that

the proclaimed offenders are not entitled to anticipatory bail.

Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State and also

on perusal of the material on record, particularly the order sheet which has been produced by the learned counsel for the petitioners, it discloses that

the charge-sheet was filed on 19.11.2019 and the Trial Court has taken the cognizance against the petitioners for the offence punishable under

Sections 143, 147, 420, 323, 506 read with 149 of IPC and issued the NBW against them since in the charge-sheet it is shown as they have

absconded. The learned counsel submits that some of the other accused persons have already been enlarged on bail despite proclamation has been

issued. The learned counsel submits that though the charge-sheet was filed in 2019, due to Corona, the petitioners could not appear before the Court

and proclamation was issued on 02.09.2021. The learned counsel does not dispute the fact that proclamation has been issued against accused Nos.1 to

The complaint was given in the year 2015 and almost three years was taken for investigation of the matter and filing of the charge-sheet and

invoked the offence punishable under Sections 465, 467, 471, 323 and 506 of IPC and the charge-sheet was filed in the year 2019 itself and

proclamation was issued in 2021 when the NBW issued against the petitioner were not executed. When such being the factual aspects of the case

and when these petitioners are the proclaimed offenders, the petitioners cannot seek the relief under Section 438 of Cr.P.C and they can approach the

Trial Court by making necessary application for recalling of the warrant before the Trial Court.

In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following:

ORDER

The petition is rejected.