Smt. Manjula vs State of Karnataka

H. Billappa

The petitioner has filed this petition under Sec. 438 of Cr.P.C. praying for grant of anticipatory bail.

It is stated in the petition, the petitioner is innocent of the offences alleged against her and she has been falsely implicated in the case. The petitioner hails from a respectable family and she is ready to abide all conditions that may be imposed. Therefore, the petitioner has prayed for grant of Anticipatory Bail.

It is alleged, the complainant''s father had three sons. Complainant is the last son. Complainant''s elder brothers are no more. They belong to Bhovi caste. They were residing at Brahmanahalli village. After 1980 they went to Eddalayapalli in Andra Pradesh and residing there. It is alleged that the complainant''s father had purchased two sites bearing Nos.24 and 25 in Sy.No.51/1 of Mathikere village through sale deed dated 12/10/1961. Site No.25 was sold on 17/07/1974. In Site No.24 shed was constructed and they are in possession. It is alleged, the accused No.1 has created GPA. The father of the complainant died on 05/07/1986. The GPA is dated 10/03/1988. The complainant''s father has nothing to do with A2 Gajendra and A3 Sundara Murthy. In collusion with A1 and the petitioner, A2 and A3 have sold the property in favour of the petitioner on 03/03/2011 representing that they are the children of complainant''s father. A case in Crime No.273/11 of Yeshwanthapura Police Station, Bangalore, has been registered for the offences punishable under Secs. 468, 471. 420 r/w 34 of IPC.

The Learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner is innocent of the offences alleged against her and she has been falsely implicated in the case and the petitioner has nothing to do with the alleged crime and A1 has been granted bail and therefore, the petitioner can be granted anticipatory bail.

As against this, the learned Government pleader-submitted that the investigation is going on and the petitioner is required for investigation as allegations of forgery have been made and therefore, the petitioner cannot be granted anticipatory bail.

I have carefully considered the submissions made by the Learned Counsel for the parties.

The point that arises for my consideration is:

Whether the petitioner can be granted anticipatory bail?

It is relevant to note, the allegations are the complaint''s father had purchased two sites bearing Nos.24 and 25 in Sy.No.51/1 of Mathikere village. Site No.25 was sold on 17/07/1974, It is alleged, A1 has created power of attorney. In collusion with A1 and the petitioner, A2 and A3 have sold the property in favour of the petitioner on 3.3.2011. The petitioner claims to be a bonafide purchaser. It is a matter for investigation. A1 has been granted bail. The petitioner is available for investigation. Therefore, the petitioner can be granted anticipatory bail subject to certain conditions.

Accordingly, the petition is allowed and the petitioner is granted anticipatory bail subject to the following conditions.

i) In the event; of her arrest in Cr.No.278/11 of Yeshwanthapura Police Station, Bangalore, the petitioner shall be released on bail on her executing a bond for a sum of `.25,000/- with one surety for the like sum to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer.

ii) The petitioner shall appear before the I.O. within five days from today and shall cooperate with the I.O. for investigation as and when required.

iii) The petitioner shall not tamper with the witnesses.

iv) If the petitioner violate any condition the respondent-State can move for cancellation of the Bail.