AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
S Vishwajith Shetty, J
Accused in Crime No.85/2023 registered by Huliyurdurga Police Station, Tumakuru for offences punishable under Sections 465, 468 and 471 of IPC is before this Court under Section 438 of Cr.P.C.
Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
It is the case of the prosecution that, petitioner who was working as Panchayat Development Officer of Nidasale Village Grama Panchayat, Tumakuru had submitted a action plan in triplicate under MNREG Scheme by forging the signatures of the President of Grama Panchayat. It is the further case of the prosecution that President of Grama Panchayat had disputed his signature found in the action plan and therefore, enquiry team was set up and on enquiry it was found that the signature of the President of Grama Panchayat which was found in the action plan submitted by the petitioner herein are forged signatures. Therefore, on the basis of the complaint lodged by the Executive Officer of Kunigal Taluk Panchayat, F.I.R. in Crime No.85/2023 was registered by Huliyurdurga Police Station, Tumakuru against the petitioner. Apprehending his arrest in the said case, petitioner has filed Crl.Misc.No.638/2023 before the Court of the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tumakuru was dismissed on 19.05.2023. Therefore, he is before this Court.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no material to show that it is the petitioner who has forged the documents. The action plan is not executed and the amount of Rs.46 lakhs has not been withdrawn. The action plan which allegedly contained the forged signature of the President of Grama Panchayat is in the custody of the complainant. Therefore, custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required. Accordingly, prays to allow the petition.
Per contra, the learned HCGP has opposed the bail application and submits that there are serious charges alleged against the petitioner and his custodial interrogation is necessary. Accordingly, prays to dismiss the petition.
Even according to the complaint averments, after receipt of a complaint from the President of Grama Panchayat with regard to the genuineness of his signature found in the action plan which was submitted by the petitioner under MNREG Scheme, an enquiry was held and the complainant suspected that petitioner might have forged the signature of the President of Grama Panchayat. The prosecution case is primarily based on documentary evidence and the documents are very much available with the complainant and the same is in his custody. Petitioner was working as Panchayat Development Officer of the Nidasale Village Grama Panchayat, Tumakuru. Considering the nature of allegations made against the petitioner, his custodial interrogation in the matter may not be required. Undisputedly, the action plan was not executed and the amount of Rs.46 lakhs under MNREG Scheme for which action plan was submitted has not been sanctioned. Under these circumstances, I am of the view that, prayer made by the petitioner for grant of anticipatory bail is required to be answered in affirmative. Accordingly, the following:
ORDER
The petition is allowed.
The respondent - Police or any other police in the State of Karnataka are directed to release the petitioner in the event of his arrest in Crime No.85/2023 registered by Huliyurdurga Police Station, Tumakuru for offences punishable under Sections 465, 468 and 471 of IPC subject to the following conditions:
The petitioner shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) with two sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the investigating officer.
The petitioner shall regularly appear before the Trial Court without fail unless exempted by the Trial Court for valid reasons.
The petitioner shall not tamper with the prosecution witness and he shall co-operate with the Police for investigation and appear before them whenever called upon.
The petitioner shall not involve in similar offences in future.