Mahadevappa vs The State of Karnataka

Budihal R.B., J.—This petition is filed by petitioner-accused No. 1 u/s 438 of Cr.P.C. seeking anticipatory bail to direct the respondent-police to release the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 181, 419, 420 r/w Section 34 of IPC registered in respondent-police station Crime No. 150/2013. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that the complainant was working as stone cutter and also mining at Chitradurga. Since he was expert in handling stone, people used to invite and take his advise. He was constrained to stay at Bandihalli village situate at Kollegal taluk 30 years prior since one Khan had brought him to the village. In 1988 he purchased a land measuring 4 acres 24 guntas from Mallanna for a total sale consideration of Rs. 10,000/- and got it registered before the Sub-Registrar and on account of ill-health, he stayed at Chitradurga. It is further alleged that recently he came to Bandihalli village and learnt that said land was being sold to someone else and after enquiry in sub-registrar''s office, he came to know that accused No. 2 B. Ramakrishna has got the said property registered from accused No. 1. In 2005 accused No. 6 Vinayashekar got sale deed in his favour. Subsequently, the complainant learnt that his property was sold in favour of accused No. 2 by accused No. 1. The petitioner herein has signed as witness to the first sale transaction and hence, the complainant has sought for taking legal action against the accused person. On the basis of the said complaint, a case has been registered.

Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-accused No. 1 and also the learned Government Pleader for the respondent-State.

Learned counsel for the petitioner during the course of his arguments submitted that this Court has already considered the bail application filed by accused Nos. 3 to 5 and has granted bail to them. As such, the present petitioner is also entitled for grant of anticipatory bail on the ground of parity. Learned counsel has also submitted that the material on record clearly shows that it is the complainant who has sold the property in favour of accused No. 2 earlier and since there is a rise in the market value of the landed property, now he has come up with the false case by implicating the accused persons in the case. He has submitted that petitioner is ready to abide by any conditions to be imposed by the Court. He is aged 60 years. Hence, petition may be allowed and he may be granted with anticipatory bail.

As against this, learned Government Pleader during the course of his arguments has submitted that the present petitioner on the false representation that he himself is the owner of the land has sold the property and thereby, he has cheated the owner of the property and committed the alleged offence. Hence, petitioner is not entitled to anticipatory bail. He has also submitted that the matter is still under investigation and the Investigating Officer has to record the statement of some more witnesses. Hence, submitted to reject the bail application.

I have perused the averments made in the bail application and all other materials placed on record, so also, the order of this Court dated 25.10.2013 passed in Crl. P. No. 6106/2013 wherein this Court has considered the merits of the case and granted anticipatory bail to accused Nos. 3 to 5. The present petitioner is also on the same footing as that of accused Nos. 3 to 5 and the offences alleged are all triable by the Magistrate Court and they are not exclusively punishable with death or imprisonment for life. Therefore, by imposing reasonable conditions, petitioner can be admitted to bail. Accordingly, petition is allowed. The respondent-police are directed to release the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 181, 419, 420 r/w Section 34 of IPC registered in respondent-police station Crime No. 150/2013 subject to the following conditions:

(i) Petitioner shall execute a personal bond for Rs. 25,000/- and furnish one surety for the like sum to the satisfaction of the concerned Court.

(ii) He shall not tamper with any of the prosecution witnesses directly or indirectly.

(iii) He shall make himself available before the Investigating Officer for interrogation whenever called for.

(iv) He shall give attendance before the respondent-police on every Sunday between 10.00 a.m. and 11.00 a.m. till the completion of the investigation.

(v) He shall appear before the concerned Court within 30 days from the date of this order and to execute personal bond and also surety bond.